April 13, 2009
From TimesonlineThailand’s political crisis has become more alarming every year but, until the past two days, it fell short of being frightening. Last year’s vast demonstrations, the mobs of yellow-shirted protesters taking over the prime minister’s office - they were aggressive and disruptive, but there was no sense in which they threatened the state as a whole.
The occupation of Bangkok’s international airport last year was a surprise - but even then it seemed that the police and the army had allowed it to happen, and that the security apparatus retained the capacity, at least, for exerting control.
The events of the weekend make it difficult to maintain such confidence. The ease with which a different mob - dressed in red, this time - chased away the leaders of Asia’s most powerful countries yesterday,
virtually unimpeded by the police and army, suggests a new and truly dangerous possibility: that Thailand is becoming a country without law enforcement, in which any rabble with large enough numbers and bright enough T-shirts, can impose its will by means of physical menace.
virtually unimpeded by the police and army, suggests a new and truly dangerous possibility: that Thailand is becoming a country without law enforcement, in which any rabble with large enough numbers and bright enough T-shirts, can impose its will by means of physical menace.
The tumult in Thailand has always been complicated and unpredictable but, it used to be at least comprehensible. It was a story of two sides, conveniently colour-coded, and of a military which clearly favoured one over the other.
On one hand were the Red Shirts, supporters of the exiled former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a military coup in 2006.
The Reds drew their support from the rural and urban poor; even after Thaksin’s overthrow, they continued to win at the polls; and it was only last year that the pro-Thaksin government was driven out by a prolonged and dramatic show of force by their opponents - the Yellow Shirts.
The Reds drew their support from the rural and urban poor; even after Thaksin’s overthrow, they continued to win at the polls; and it was only last year that the pro-Thaksin government was driven out by a prolonged and dramatic show of force by their opponents - the Yellow Shirts.
The Yellows, or People’s Alliance for Democracy, hated Mr Thaksin, and drew their support from the middle-class elite.
In a series of increasingly bold demonstrations, they helped to force the pro-Thaksin government from power, occupying strategic sites under the noses, and seemingly with the connivance, of the Thai police and army.
It might have been deplorable, but at least it seemed clear what the armed forces wanted - a government of the old kind: pro-monarchy, urban elitist, and uninterested in exploiting the gap between rich and poor, as Thaksin had done.
In a series of increasingly bold demonstrations, they helped to force the pro-Thaksin government from power, occupying strategic sites under the noses, and seemingly with the connivance, of the Thai police and army.
It might have been deplorable, but at least it seemed clear what the armed forces wanted - a government of the old kind: pro-monarchy, urban elitist, and uninterested in exploiting the gap between rich and poor, as Thaksin had done.
Last night, it wasn’t clear what the army wanted, or even if it knew itself. After the raid on the interior ministry, red shirted protesters were seen whooping and waving from the back of two of the armoured cars deployed to enforce the emergency order against them.
When the deputy prime minister appealed directly to the country’s soldiers in a live television address to impose a ate of emergency in Bangkok, he seemed to be expressing doubts that they had any intention of doing as they were told.
When the deputy prime minister appealed directly to the country’s soldiers in a live television address to impose a ate of emergency in Bangkok, he seemed to be expressing doubts that they had any intention of doing as they were told.
What lies behind the army’s ambivalence? Not a change of allegiance, perhaps, as much as genuine bafflement about how to overcome the crisis.
After the coup in 2006, a cabinet of generals and their appointees governed the country for a year, and discovered how demanding, tricky and unrewarding it is.
After the coup in 2006, a cabinet of generals and their appointees governed the country for a year, and discovered how demanding, tricky and unrewarding it is.
This is why another military coup is less likely than it might appear: why would a high-raking general - or any but the most power hungry politician - want to sully himself in the murky pool of current Thai politics? The same applies to Thailand’s king, Bhumibol Adulyadej.
In the past, he has made strategic interventions at moments of crisis to bang heads together and foster unity among enemies.
There is little prospect of that today - a sign both of the depth of the enmity which divides the two sides and, perhaps, the diminishing of the monarchy’s influence.
In the past, he has made strategic interventions at moments of crisis to bang heads together and foster unity among enemies.
There is little prospect of that today - a sign both of the depth of the enmity which divides the two sides and, perhaps, the diminishing of the monarchy’s influence.
The army may decide that it has more prestige to lose by doing nothing than by enforcing the state of emergency.
The risk is that there will be bloodshed, and that martyrs will intensify the rage against the government. But even if they clear the streets cleanly, it will not alter the fundamentals of the situation.
The risk is that there will be bloodshed, and that martyrs will intensify the rage against the government. But even if they clear the streets cleanly, it will not alter the fundamentals of the situation.
There is no right and wrong, no goodies and baddies, in this confrontation. Both sides are compromised by greed and hypocrisy; and both have the authentic and uncynical support of tens of millions of ordinary people.
Thailand finds itself genuinely torn down the middle, not by race or religion, but by politics - in a way that few societies have been since the 1930s. It is a mesmerising and distressing spectacle; it will take years before the divisions are overcome.
Thailand finds itself genuinely torn down the middle, not by race or religion, but by politics - in a way that few societies have been since the 1930s. It is a mesmerising and distressing spectacle; it will take years before the divisions are overcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment