Last week, I mentioned the incipient revolution going on in Thailand, but here on my travel blog. That's because I often travel to Thailand on Christmas vacations. Thanksfully, not this year. Increasingly vehement demonstrations against the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra-- which has led to several deaths and hundreds of injuries and is tearing Bangkok apart-- has resulted in the opposition Members of Parliament resigning en masse followed by the Prime Minister dissolving Parliament and calling for new elections. So why is this happening?Many Thais, feel that crooked right-wing populist Thaksin Shinawatra, a kind of tea baggy Koch Brother who was convicted of fraud and ousted as prime minister, is the power behind his sister's government. The opposition isn't what you would call a "democracy movement." Impoverished, low-info voters in the country, overwhelmingly support the Shinawatra clan. Jonathan Head tried to provide some context for BBC readers:
For the past two weeks the leaders of the protest movement that has been trying to bring down the government have made one thing clear: that they do not believe a new election will resolve the conflict. Instead they have argued for parliamentary democracy to be replaced by an appointed "People's Council"-- although they have left unsaid which people would choose this council.So the unexpected announcement by Yingluck Shinawatra that she would dissolve parliament will not satisfy many of the tens of thousands now out on the streets of Bangkok again. It is part of a solution, one woman told me-- but the Shinawatra family have to leave Thailand.There is uncertainty too whether the opposition Democrat Party would contest, or boycott the election. Their MPs resigned en masse from parliament on Sunday, this morning they are being evasive. In 2006 the party boycotted an election, causing a deadlock that eventually led to the coup that deposed Ms Yingluck's brother, Mr Thaksin.The core of the opposition's grievances is the belief that the five consecutive election victories by the governing party were "bought", either by bribes, or through unsustainable, populist policies. But all the data shows clear and strong support in Thailand's north and north-east for the government, and that all the recent election results broadly reflected the will of the majority.
What happens in a democracy, even a nominal one like the Kingdom of Thailand where the king is literally worshipped as a God, when the voters elect crooks and scoundrels? Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political science professor at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, dives deep for the Daily Star in a way I have not seen any American journalists even try:
From Thailand to Turkey to Ukraine, the relationship between ruling majorities and electoral minorities has become combustible-- and is threatening to erode the legitimacy of democracy itself. The unfolding crisis in Bangkok-- where a political minority has taken to the streets to bring down Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s democratically elected government-- is a case in point. Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party (PTP) won an outright majority in Thailand’s 2011 general election, gaining 265 MPs in the 500-member lower house. But the opposition Democratic Party-- which returned 159 MPs, mainly from Bangkok and southern Thailand-- has lately been staging protests in the capital. The so-called “People’s Committee for Democratic Reform”-- led by former Democratic Party MP Suthep Thaugsuban and supported by the Bangkok-based establishment-- has effectively attempted to stage a coup.The protests began when the government tried to enact amnesty legislation that would have overturned the conviction of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra-- Yingluck’s brother and the PTP’s founder, who was overthrown by the military in 2006 – on charges of corruption and abuse of power. (It also would have superseded the murder charges brought against the Democratic Party’s leader, former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.) But Yingluck’s subsequent attempt to backtrack on the amnesty measure failed to mollify the opposition.In fact, the street protests intensified, fueled by a new grievance. The Yingluck government had refused to accept the Constitutional Court’s ruling against a bill to change the senate from a half-appointed to a fully elected chamber. The government asserted that the court did not have jurisdiction over constitutional amendments. The People’s Committee viewed this rejection as an attempt to pressure the king into countersigning the law-- and thus as a threat to royal prerogatives and the king’s exalted role in Thailand.The People’s Committee’s position deserves explanation, if not agreement. Since the turn of the century, Thaksin’s party machines, powered by his populist policies, have overcome constant challenges-- from both the military and the Constitutional Court-- to beat the conservative-royalist Democrats in every election.Opposition forces, fed up as much with Thaksin’s corrupt practices as with his longstanding popularity, have recently begun seizing government ministries and calling for a royally appointed government. If they succeed, PTP supporters will likely descend on Bangkok, much as they did in 2009-2010, after a “judicial coup” dissolved Thaksin’s People’s Power Party, the PTP’s predecessor, and the Democrats formed a coalition government. But this time, the protesters will be even angrier, and the stakes will be much higher, because the monarchy’s role in Thailand’s electoral democracy will be called into question.The mere plausibility of such an outcome underscores Thailand’s deep political polarization. The PTP’s supporters are happy with a system that grants them a political voice-- indeed, predictable electoral majorities-- and that safeguards their rights. But the minority-- which comprises up to two-fifths of the electorate-- is at a loss. Its legitimacy and influence depend not on winning electoral majorities, but on its strong alliances with the military, bureaucracy and judiciary in defense of a traditional hierarchy that places the king at its apex.Making matters worse, voters on both sides are tuning in only to views with which they agree, rather than attempting to understand and reconcile opposing arguments. Social media-- the much-lauded catalyst of democratization in authoritarian countries-- has exacerbated the trend toward polarization in Thailand, just as it has in other electoral democracies that are struggling with a widening majority-minority divide, such as Turkey and Malaysia.In emerging democracies, electoral minorities tend to be tied to the old establishment, and often oppose change that is led by popular upstarts. Feeling marginalized and resentful, they may turn to public platforms such as social media and the streets in order to advance their causes and to undermine their opponents’ authority.The proliferation of information technology, together with the unprecedented popular participation that it has fueled, means that electoral minorities have a growing number of increasingly powerful tools at their disposal to organize movements aimed at paralyzing their countries’ governments and even shortening leaders’ terms in office. Indeed, with so much seemingly at stake, a four- or five-year term may seem too long to wait for change.But while the right to peaceful protest is critically important in a democracy, electoral minorities should not use endless demonstrations to take the political system hostage. In order to create a peaceful, stable, and effective democratic system, electoral minorities must accept the ballot box as the arbiter of political legitimacy.At the same time, majorities should not view an electoral victory as a license to act without regard for minority concerns. While the government must deliver for its constituents, it must also protect the rights of its opponents. To this end, Thailand urgently needs a new social contract that allows elected representatives to do their jobs, without marginalizing the establishment-based minority.Increasingly complex majority-minority dynamics are shaping the democratization prospects of a number of countries, and could influence democracy’s durability as a system of government. Thailand’s experience suggests that efforts to subvert the system by thwarting the will of the majority may ultimately be fruitless, though not before imposing extremely high costs on everyone.
Source