With the dust settling on the rubble of the former Red Shirt strongholds in Bangkok, Crikey spoke to Professor Damien Kingsbury, from Deakin University’s School of International and Political Studies, about the future of Thailand’s democratic process and the role of the monarchy, whose absence in the current political crisis has been notable.
“Normally, the King would have intervened and averted the situation from escalating to the point it did. The King’s role in the past has indicated that he’s the circuit breaker in the Thai political process — a fundamental weakness in attempts to establish a democratic society. In this situation, with the King old, sick and unable to act in his usual manner, there were insufficient checks to make sure that political competition didn’t descend into violence.
“There are two major issues here: first, the King is likely to die soon, and his son doesn’t have his popularity, authority or legitimacy — he’s known as a corrupt and venal character, whose behaviour is quite out of keeping with the King’s. There have been a large number of lèse majesté cases recently in Thailand, and it’s probable that these have been generated by the Prince to strengthen his role and the role of the monarchy, particularly vis a vis parliament. He wants to strengthen the ties with the Bangkok elite parties who are responsible for this crackdown: a coalition of monarchists, military and significant business interests.
“The second major issue is that Thailand has struggled with sustained democratic process — they have great aspirations, but the process keeps tripping over, and they’ve been vulnerable to a series of coups. While most Thais support democratic process, the powerholders are reluctant to allow democratic process to disadvantage them, and have a vested interest in undermining the process. Thaksin Shinawatra may have been a pretty terrible Prime Minister, but he did represent the people.”
Thailand’s unstable political landscape has been simmering hot for four years now, since the ousting of elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006, and fuelled by concerted efforts to prevent him and his largely working-class sympathisers from returning to power. Two of his allied parties were blocked from taking power, his assets were frozen and his passport revoked.
While Thaksin is believed to be a supporter of the Red Shirt movement from his globetrotting exile, Kingsbury doesn’t believe that he will be able to take another run at the prime ministership.
“Thaksin’s supporters have become increasingly aware of his own corruption and abuse of power, and not all of the coaltion that makes up the Red Shirts are entirely comfortable with him. The group includes some of the members of the banned Communist Party of Thailand — now social democrats, largely working with the poor.
“There is a coherence within the coalition, with peasants and poor people from the north-east and north aligning with poor people in the city — not necessarily a revolutionary environment, but an identification of interests in common, particularly a better distribution of the wealth of the state. Many people thought Thaksin was delivering on that, and to some extent he did, until the coup brought in the new regime.”
Now that the current protest has been quashed, Thailand is likely to return to a holding pattern until a new constitution — Thailand’s 18th since absolute monarchy ended in 1932, and third since the 2006 coup — is established.
“If the King dies, his son will succeed, and we can expect a continuation of the status quo on the part of the Bangkok elite. The Thai economy is suffering as a result of the unrest and will continue to suffer — in future, there will be a call to re-establish some sort of electoral process, and probably a new constitution. The question is what that constitution will look like, particularly regarding the role of the monarchy. The heir apparent will want to see a stronger role for the monarchy, while the pro-democratic movement will want a weaker role — this will be the point of dispute.”
According to Kingsbury, it’s unlikely that any move on a new constitution will be made before the end of this year. Allowing time to elapse gives the Red Shirt coalition, always prone to fragmentation, a chance to lose its cohesiveness. On the other hand, waiting too long for a return to review of the democratic process could see further unrest.
“Given the profound division in Thai society, and the fact that if there were an election right now, the Red Shirts would win, it seems unlikely that the government will try anything.”
The poor are not one united group in Thailand. There are a lot of poor: Rural and city. But the city poor are not fully behind the red shirts. The biggest slum in Bangkok is in Klong Toey (nearly 100,000 people live in 2 square kilometers) and until just the last few days, some had joined the red shirts and their supporters. Others refused to. But even the ones who were supporting the red shirts are backing off. It all went too far. Now the slum itself has suffered fire bombs. Homes (a generous term for the shacks these folk live in) have been destroyed. The main market where the slum dwellers get their daily food has been disrupted and shut down. People who live day by day are not able to get daily food at the moment because of this… all this has led to people admitting that “until this week I supported the red shirts… but not any more. Not now they are hurting us.”
This is of course anecdotal. But it reflects that a lot of the destruction of the last week has been random, blunt, and indiscriminate. The so called cause of the red shirts and their supporters has deteriorated into wanton violence and looting.
The King might have been able to stop it. Tragically he is very ill and apparantly has had a stroke and is bedridden. He will die soon. And then – as the article indicates – it will all get ugly again.
I wonder whether Ms Eckersley may have overlooked the change to the constitution several years ago, allowing a woman to ascend the Peacock Throne.
A view taken at the time by expats and Liberal Commoners, was that this allowed Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn to become the next ruler, especially in the light of the death of Rama VIII, which led to His Majesty King Bhumipol to become King Rama IX. Rama VIII died very unexpectedly, and at the time it was fairly clear he had been the target of those who felt he would not be a good monarch, and in truth, even among the rural poor, the current Crown Prince is not considered a happy choice.
Perhaps we will see Thailand right itself after the passing of His Majesty, and we see the People move towards The Crown Princess Maha Chakri, as she is much loved by the people and is seen as a friend to all people, rich and poor alike, whereas the Crown Prince, as noted in Eckersley’s work, in a venal man, surrounded always by sycophantic members of the wealthy and military classes, though, whilst contemplating that, it was the military who brought Thaksin Shinawatra to his current situation, as a meaningless, disembodied voice on a mobile phone, from wherever he is currently hiding.
King can catch a break can he. If he acts he is interfering, if he doesn’t he’s uncaring….
Prathep, as the princess is popularly know, has indicated a disinterest in ascending the throne…
Daemon, I will call that professor right back and demand to know why Her Royal Highness can’t ascend instead of the Prince.
He will probably reply with something like ‘Why would the ruling elite even consider supporting a populist ruler when they already have a self-interested sock-puppet?’
p.s. I’m cancelling all my plans to visit Thailand.
Maybe Markle is on the money, though Her Royal Highness never indicated to me she didn’t want to ascend.
I agree. Give the Professor stick for not being aware.