Democracy is a messy business. As the ongoing conflicts throughout the Middle East illustrate, the pendulum of social upheaval often swings wildly and in unpredictable directions. Since 2006, Thailand has found itself in the throes of political uncertainty, punctuated by outbreaks of anti-government protests and violent repression. The pattern may seem deserving of a “revolutionary” label, but Thailand’s political situation is less revolt than reforming. To wit, the nation does not simply face a popular uprising against a one-party oligarchy but rather an existential political dilemma: an interminable struggle between its political parties: the royalist People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), the populist United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), and the incumbent Democrat Party led by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. The fragmented nature of the opposition parties, which includes ideologies that span all shades of Thailand’s “colored” political spectrum, precludes a popular uprising along the lines of those in the Arab world. Yet the unrest’s persistence paradoxically has the potential to engender a more deliberate institutional change by improving the legitimacy of the existing political framework.
Six Years of Conflict
The root of Thailand’s political conflicts traces to a 2006 military coup ousting Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from Government House. Thaksin had been elected as a man of the people yet gradually gained the label of a corrupt and authoritarian ruler. His tenure saw him indicted for tax fraud on a $1.9 billion transaction with his telecommunications conglomerate, multiple nepotistic appointments, and alleged extrajudicial killings. His status as a billionaire did little to help his image. Thaksin’s rule stimulated substantial opposition from the PAD, whose members bear the title of “Yellow Shirts,” after Thailand’s royal color. Nonetheless, he found equal support in the UDD, whose “Red Shirts” provided the name for the 2010 political protests calling for his return.
After Thaksin’s outster, Thailand entered a two-year period of rapid governmental change. Four men shuffled through the premiership between 2006 and 2008, three of whom were removed through court rulings. The nation finally experienced a semblance of political stability with the election of Abhisit Vejjajiva in 2008. As a self-styled populist, he outlined a left-wing agenda with the slogan “Putting People First,” in ideological opposition to the more free market economics of Thaksin. Catharin Dalpino, an expert on Southeast Asia at the MacArthur Foundation, told the HPR that Thailand once again faced a “colorcoded political conflict.” After the election of Vejjajiva, protesters wearing UDD red took to the streets. These protests, often drawing more than 10,000 Red Shirts, resulted in violent clashes with the military and police. While the UDD’s main demand for the dissolution and re-election of Parliament is not unprecedented, the group’s support for Thaksin, largely perceived as a corrupt politician, adds another dimension to the protests.
Shades of Orange
The lack of distinct villains and heroes may make Thailand somewhat distinct from other revolutionary locales. The complaints lie not against autocratic despots but rather among democratically elected officials and between political factions. As such, the protest movements criticize specific policies of the government rather than the general styles of governance. Further, the ultimate goals of the political colors remain unclear. The divide between the Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts may be less than the polarization often portrayed. According the Asia Foundation’s “2010 National Survey of the Thai Electorate,” two-thirds of the Thai people do not identify themselves with a particular faction, and most have difficultly clearly defining the goals of the two groups. Last year’s violent protests may have perpetuated the myth of a highly polarized and potentially volatile Thai electorate, but the reality is that most Thais are largely content with the current government and believe that Thailand’s democracy is functioning.
Nevertheless, the political clashes suggest that Thailand’s government ought to approach, or at least consider, some sort of change. Ernest Bower, head of the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, urges the label “evolution” rather than “revolution” to describe the current situation in Thailand. For Bower, the current “political-royalist-business superstructure” that governs Thailand proves an unsustainable model and faces an imminent overhaul. Indeed, political heavyweights such as King Bhumibol are also the nation’s chief businessmen. The question remains whether the current prime minister remains up to the task. While Abhisit is an agreeable leader in some respects, corruption and cronyism still permeate the ranks of his cabinet. It will take at least another election to bringing greater stability and reform to the country.
Prospects for the Future
Indeed, virtually all experts suggest that the best solution for peace in Thailand is greater attention to legitimate elections. As Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a professor at Chulalongkom University in Bangkok, noted to the HPR, “Thailand has had 18 different constitutions in the last 78 years…I think it’s important that the Thai people learn to work within the system.” Pongsudhirak accepts the inevitability of some corruption in Thai politics, but would prefer an elected official with some semblance of stability in office, rather than another military coup to replace a corrupt politician with an unelected one. By proving to the people that the elections are not rigged, Pongsudhirak asserts, Thailand can add greater confidence to a system rocked by uncertainty.
Pongsudhirak may soon get his wish. It is widely expected that Prime Minister Abhisit will dissolve parliament and hold elections in July. Of course, concern lingers as to how the elections will play out in the wake of last year’s protests. Kim McQuay, the Asia Foundation’s representative to Thailand, worries, “There is a fairly strong sense among the Thai people that all of this is not behind them. They feel that there is every possibility that they could see another incident or incidence of that kind.”
Possible electoral oversight could cure some doubts about electoral legitimacy, and the increasingly moderate Thai electorate may help dissuade the extremists in the Yellow and Red Shirt movements from protesting. Nonetheless, the political evolution in Thailand is happening, but it requires a greater emphasis on honest politics. While Bower doesn’t “see Thailand headed for civil war [or revolution],” he warns that “unless the government shifts towards empowerment and better institutions and allowing expression, [Thailand is] going to continue to have these grinding protests and this won’t go away until political space is created.”
Caroline Cox ‘14 is the Campus Blog Editor. Arjun Mody ‘14 is a Staff Writer.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.