Democracy as a means of getting power
|
COMMENTS 
The coup in Thailand marks the end of a skewed 15-year experiment with democratic governance by Thaksin Shinawatra, a corporate leader who used democracy only as a means to legitimise his power
Bangkok, the city of smiles, looked quiet and grave. There were hushed talks about a coup. The TV suddenly started playing the national anthem and all the international TV channels disappeared. Military vehicles moved around the city. On Sept 19, 2006 at around 10 in the night, the taxi-driver confirmed that there was a coup and advised me to rush home as there could be strife between different factions of the army.
Thus Thailand saw its 18th military coup since the first military coup of 1932.
Though this time there was hardly any inconvenience to the people of Bangkok, this military coup is significant because it happened after 15 years of experimentation with democratic governance. This coup is in the name of 'restoring' democracy by capturing power from the 'democratically' elected caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Though there are voices of protest from civil society and democratic activists, the people of Bangkok seem only too happy with the departure of Thaksin, the key protagonist of Thai politics. There is a mix of quiet celebration and untold anxiety among the people. There is a strange silence in Bangkok, symbolising the ambivalence of the democratic process in Thailand.
Thailand is once again torn between military power on the one hand and democratic aspirations on the other. This coup is also interesting as the leader of the Administrative Reform Council that led the coup is Gen Sonthi Boonyaratklin, the first Muslim Army Chief in a predominantly Buddhist country. Though the Constitution and Parliament have been terminated, it is noteworthy that the Privy Council headed by Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, an advisor to the King, who was in power from 1980 to 1988, is playing a significant role in the new political context. Thailand's experiment with democracy is entering a rather uncertain and turbulent phase.
Politics and society in Thailand have been shaped by the stable and highly revered monarchy, military and religion. Even when there were spells of democratic government, these political forces shaped the discourse and sustained the power base. In fact, even after 15 years of democratic experiments most of the TV channels and radio networks are still controlled by the military.
Thailand, with a population 64.1 million, has emerged as one of the most significant countries in South East Asia, with a relatively stable democracy and economic recovery, after the financial crisis in 1997. The main protagonist in Thai politics during this phase has been Thaksin Shinawatra, who symbolises both the strength and limitations of Thailand's experiments with democracy.
The corporatisation of Thai politics happened with the advent of Thaksin. He is a third-generation Chinese-Thai, born in 1949, in the northern city of Chiangmai. Starting his career as a police officer in 1970, he went on do a PhD in Criminology in the USA, on a government scholarship in 1973. On his return, he became a most successful businessman and a billionaire in 15 years! He started his first computer dealership in 1987 and went on to build the Shin Corporation, one of the biggest business conglomerates in South East Asia. He founded Thai Rak Thai (Thai loves Thai), a political venture that resembled a corporate one, with its headquarters in one of the big towers owned by Shin Corporation.
Like an intelligent investor, he invested money and got many rich Thai corporate magnates as shareholders in his new political venture. Thai Rak Thai was neither right nor left; it was more a corporate venture, using communication, technology, mobilisation tactics and media, capitalising on the insecurity after the financial crisis of 1997, and selling dreams of nationalism as well as economic recovery. Within three years of launching this corporate-style political party, Thaksin became prime minister in 2001.
In one of his interviews, Thaksin said "democracy is just a means to get power". In many ways, this exposed his rhetorical commitment to democracy and his real efforts to run the country like the CEO of a business corporation. In the process, Thaksin ended up subverting every institution and process of democracy. He not only corporatised his party, he attempted to corporatise the state as well. He used populist poverty eradication programmes and pro-poor rhetoric on the one hand and on the other he favoured big corporations, including his own, and went on to privatise everything. He did not like criticism and fancied himself following in the footsteps of Mahateer Mohammed of Malaysia or developing Thailand in the form of a 'democracy' like Singapore.
In the process, he ended up a populist authoritarian corporate leader, using democracy as a means to legitimise his power. That is why he failed to provide a political solution to the unrest in Southern Thailand caused by the Muslim minority population. More than 1,000 people were killed within a span of months. He has also been accused of rampant violations of human rights, especially because of the extra-judicial killings of around 2,500 suspected drug peddlers.
Through clever political management as well as media campaigning, Thaksin won his second term with a landslide majority (377 out of 500 parliament seat) in the election in February 2005. However, during his second term, he became increasingly unpopular with civil society, the political class as well as middle class Bangkok. The perceived subversion of the law and institutions to sell off his family stake in Shin Corporation for a whopping US $1.9 billion, tax-free, to a powerful investor in Singapore, created a huge political backlash. This resulted in unprecedented political mobilisation against Thaksin. As a part of his "put up or shut up" policy he dissolved parliament and declared a snap poll in April 2006. Though the main opposition Democratic Party and others boycotted the election, Thaksin won 57% of the vote. However, the constitutional court declared the election null and void and asked the government to conduct fresh elections. Thaksin decided to continue as the caretaker prime minister, in spite of the widespread protest against him.
Thaksin is a hero, villain and victim of the new democratic experiment in Thailand. He used democracy as a means, with his corporate investments and newfound wealth, to capture power for its own sake. It's not surprising that few people are shedding tears for Thaksin and his brand of democracy.
In the political landscape of Thailand, the unifying and stabilising force is the highly revered King Bhumbol Adulyadej. He has been the head of the state for the last 60 years, the longest-serving monarch in the world. He commands a unique moral authority. In spite of several political coups, the gentle manner and rare interventions of the King helped stabilise the political process in Thailand. In the present political impasse, the ordinary people of Thailand hope the King will help restore the process of democracy, in spite of the coup. It is yet to be seen whether the promised restoration of democracy will help create a genuine democratic political process and space in Thailand, "the land of the free".
InfoChange News & Features, September 2006