|
A Banana Republic?
 Thailand is a nation at the crossroad. It has
followed a troubled but more or less democratic political path since
its establishment as a constitutional monarchy in 1932, slipping
from the vicious cycle of coup d’etats and military rule (except
from the period after May 1992 to
September 2006) when it achieved a relative political stability and
economic development. The reverting act of changing the government
not by popular elections but through series of coups d’etats
is hardly new to Thailand which has witnessed military interventions
in the affairs of the state not only once but eighteen times over
the past seventy-five years. The country has characteristics that
best describe a banana republic. It is characterized by a squabble
for political power that takes place within the factions of
government usually from the military. Hence no regime is able to
survive for any length of time without the interest, articulation
and participation of the monarchy, bureaucratic elites and military
cliques who dictate the future that holds together a brittle
democracy. While the contending forces claim they defend the utmost
interest of the general public, the people are the ones who bear the
brunt of the impact of political turmoil, notwithstanding, the
curtailment of their rights and freedom and the havoc it brings into
their lives.
When everyone thought of Thailand as one of the
rising tiger economies of Asia with its fledging democracy already
in an upsurge, the country was suddenly caught in a political
whirlwind. On 19 September 2006, a military coup ousted Prime
Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from office while he was in New York
attending a meeting of the UN General Assembly. The coup
plotters led by General Sonthi Boonyaratglin installed a military
junta. Thaksin attempted to assert his emergency powers but failed.
The coup was not unexpected. Rumors were
already circulating months before the military takeover took place.
The Thaksin administration was already shaken by a political crisis
in January 2006. His critics accused him of garnering billions from
a controversial telecommunication deal his family brokered with a
foreign company. He was held responsible for the resurgence of
violence in the south and the increasing human rights violations
brought about by the government’s “war on drugs” and
counter-insurgency campaigns. Thaksin was allegedly behind the
military crackdown on political dissidents and human rights
defenders. The international community condemned the military
takeover, but for the Thai people, it was largely accepted as a
necessary evil to bring down the rule of a corrupt leader and his
government. Thus, it initially enjoyed significant public and royal
support.
 Consequently, the coup placed the country
under martial law. The 1997 constitution was abrogated, parliament
was dissolved and the judicial court was replaced with an appointed
military tribunal. Civil and political rights particularly the
freedom of the press and of association and assembly were
restricted. An interim civilian government called the Council for
National Security (CNS) was established within a few weeks with
former army commander Surayud Chulanont as interim prime minister.
CNS promised to restore a democratic government at the end of the
year and guaranteed to protect human rights to appease the
escalating violence in the south and to bring normalcy to the
country. But the situation did not turn out better. The public
confidence in the interim government eventually declined. A new
constitution was passed in August 2007 that spelled out the Thai
people’s democratic aspirations. A general election was held on 23
December 2007 to signal the return of civilian government.
The People Power Party (PPP) headed by Samak
Sundaravej, a reformed Thai Rak Thai Party of ousted PM Thaksin
Shinawatra won a plurality of seats, a clear rebuke to the
military rule.1
|
