18,18, 25-The Calculus of Thai Politics

18, 18, 25.

Why are these three numbers important? In the last 76 years, since Thailand became a constitutional monarchy during the reign of King Rama VII, there have been 18 attempted coups (12 successful), 18 constitutions and 25 national elections. These numbers are the core of the Thai political calculus that has led to the current situation that Thailand finds itself in. That situation being that a mob has occupied Government House (the Thai equivalent of the White House) for more than two months.

A little background: Beginning the Bangkok period of Thai history in the late 1700’s, Thailand has been ruled by current royal family starting with King Rama I (each king has an actual name but their title as king is Rama). Until Rama VII, the royal family ruled absolutely and, by and large, fairly in Thailand. The one complaint commonly made then and today made is that one’s social and physical proximity to the royal family increased one’s influence in Thai society.

In 1932, after a surge of democratic protests, Thailand adopts its first constitution under the reign of King Rama VII, the father of the current king. Under the new Thai system, the king is the head of state and a prime minister and parliament run the government. Since then you have the situation with a coup/coup attempt and a new constitution every four years roughly.

As was explained to us by a young political science professor from Thammasat University, the Thai political cycle since 1932 has gone roughly as follows.

Civilian gov’t elected ‡ Civilian gov’t messes up (either by economic mismanagement and/or corruption) ‡ People (particularly the educated middle class) complain ‡ Military intervention (meaning that the military forcibly removes the government) ‡
Military redrafts the constitution ‡ Cycle starts again

As the professor spoke, he also detailed the four forces to understand in analyzing Thai politics.

The military: The uniformed military is not under civilian control in any terms but on paper. They pick their own leaders and operate with no real check. This lack of civilian control has been a perennial issue in Thai politics but one that the military will fight to the death to maintain. Attacks on their autonomy have been used as rationale to remove governments, this was true with the last coup against Thaksin. (more to come on that later)

The monarchy: The monarchy is ostensibly neutral but has intervened in times of political distress to calm the nation. The monarch is the unifying force in Thailand and is universally respected and revered. Politcal parties and actors have purported to be acting in the interest or on the wishes of the monarchy to give their actions legitimacy. Being called a “republican” or someone who wants to get rid of the monarchy is one of the most devastating slurs in all of Thai politics. Lastly, freedom of speech exists except in regard to the monarchy. One is not allowed to publish anything disparaging about the royal family at all.

Political parties: The oldest political party in Thailand is the Democracy party. It is based in Bangkok and the south and is mainly made of urban, educated, middle class voters. Right now they are aligned with other parties and interests in a group called the People Allied for Democracy (PAD). They are currently the opposition. They are an urban middle class party based in the Bangkok metropolitan area and the south of Thailand. The party in power is the People Power Party (PPP), they are reconstituted version of the party of Thaksin (more on him later) which was disbanded by court ruling. Their base of support is in the rural and poor northeast and north of Thailand where most of the country lives. They are universally called a populist party.

Social movements: On October 14, 1973, after one of Thailand’s military coups. Millions took to the streets to protest the suspension of the constitution and constriction of freedom that followed. That mass demonstration of people power deposed the military rulers and led to the drafting of a new constitution. Today, there is a mass group occupying the Thai equivalent of the White House and they have been there for the past two months. Further they are there in protest to a popularly and constitutionally elected government. Further, they are there in support of a plan that would diminish the percentage of MPS elected directly by the people from 100% to 30%. (More on that later)

While the current political situation has roots in the aforementioned decade-longs cycle, the current iteration of that cycle has an unmistakable catalyst and his name is Thaksin. Formerly a highly successful businessman, Thaksin created his own party called __________ (precursor of the PPP) and rode to power in 2001 on an unabashedly populist platform that particularly appealed to voters in the poor north and northeast regions. Thaksin was a forceful and, some would call, visionary leader who took the government by storm. Taking power at the tail end of the Asian financial crisis that hit Thailand first, Thaksin spurred growth in the economy by a dual track policy of trade liberalization abroad (openness to investment and trade with other countries) and massive public investment abroad (such as a massive investment in public healthcare, huge public works projects and pots of money dedicated to villages for self directed projects). There are those who call Thaksin corrupt. During his tenure as PM, Thaksin sold his company for an astronomical sum to a Singaporean firm. Four days before that, he signed a law that made that sale legal and possible. Thaksin and his party were also found guilty by the nation’s highest court of election law violation in the form of paying off voters and like. The court ordered the party disbanded.

In 2006, the cycle proceeded unbroken and Thaksin was removed from power by military coup. Eventually, he fled to England because he believed that he could receive no fair trial in the country. The military rewrote the constitution and vastly reduced the power of the prime minister to prevent the rise of another Thaksin. An election was held shortly after the coup and Thaksin’s party, relying on their strength in the north and northeast, rode to victory. Since that time, stability has proved increasingly elusive. The PAD has staged greater and greater public protests against the government on the grounds that they are corrupt and anti-royalists. The government (PPP) has gone through two prime ministers and is trying desperately to hold onto power claiming that the opposition is trying to overturn the democratic election, which they could not win legitimately.

And so here we are, with a government paralyzed and everyone looking to see what will happen next. The last thing about this whole situation that has mystified me has been this: no one talks about it. I mean no one. If I had not had this professor explain this situation to me I would have no idea what was going on. The violence which has resulted in some deaths and police firing tear gas has been largely confined to the area near Government House in Bangkok which most people no longer go near. I think about the US, if this was going on it would be the topic of conversation in every coffeshop, around every water cooler, and at every dinner table. But here not a word. I think one reason is Thai inclination to avoid public confrontation at almost all cost that I have been told about and observed since I’ve been here. Another reason, related to the first, is that this is the first time that Thai politics has polarized the body politic so completely and to discuss it is almost invite conflict. I’ve heard from many of my Thai acquaintances about discussions have led to near fist fights among friends. Urban educated voters who make up the opposition complain that the government is corrupt and paying off the rural voters that have given them their electoral edge. They have suggested that if rural voters insist on continuing to vote for such candidates and parties that their voting power should be reduced. A scheme that has been suggested is having only 30% of the Parliament elected and the other 70% appointed (appointed by whom?, the PAD has not laid that out). Rural voters dismiss the complaints about corruption as an ideological patina for middle class anger that the poor, instead of the educated rich, are benefiting from government largess and power.

As a political science major, this whole situation has been incredibly fascinating to watch but as a visitor to this beautiful it is ultimately tragic to actually think about.