The Great Thailand Eye Opening

.
The current red protests are proving to be a good eye opening to the Thai people, and the world, to the charade that is Thai 'democracy'.

The 2006 royalist endorsed military coup, the actions of 'non political' players in events leading up to the coup, and since, have put further pieces in the jigsaw that is 'thai style democracy'.

Whilst most tourists to Thailand don't care about Thai politics as long as they can keep getting what they crave (be it cheap, depraved or exotic), and expat businessmen similarly are only really interested in their bottom line, slowly but surely more light is being shone on matters that the 'natural' order of things in Thailand mean are supposed to be taboo.

All manner of discussions are taking place in print, film, radio, Internet and in private, in Thai, English and no doubt many other languages.

There is still considerable risk, particularly if one is a Thai in Thailand, as evidenced by the continued use of the draconian LM laws and Computer Crimes Act, against people who try to seek the truth and allow open discussion. Tantawut Taweewarodomkul and Prachatai webmaster, Chiranuch Premchaiporn are the latest victims, and add to a growing list of pending cases and convictions.

It seems Thailand is being analysed within and without, and the analysis is not just limited to obscure papers and academic journals.

Whilst the cut and thrust of the day to day colour coded politics is boring to me and I abhor Thaksin as much as I abhor Abhisit (or John Howard, George Bush, and lately Kevin Rudd etc etc), I find the bigger picture issues related to the thai system/structure quite fascinating.

I hope I'm wrong, but my gut feeling tells me continued injustice over a long period of time will inevitably breed terrorism in one form or other.

Thai style democracy is built on a noble lie, and once enough people question that lie, it has to either collapse, or be enforced - the old system can no longer function in the same way because it's foundation brick (the noble lie) has been removed.

IMO, to enforce the noble lie leads ultimately to a North Korea or Burma style future for Thailand, or more likely the southern insurgency being replicated in the north east and the north, however such insurgencies would unlikely be so 'polite' as to stay away from the capital.

The alternative to enforcement of the noble lie is to allow democracy (or 'mob rule' as Plato thought of it:)

That's the battle as I see it, and whilst I had sympathy for the original PAD protests against Thaksin's excesses, if its a choice between yellow and red, (or even red and non red, or yellow and non yellow) I now believe the non yellow or red side is the only side which offers a positive future for Thailand.
(Note: These are my views only, and do not imply that the red shirt protesters or leaders agree with my outlook - rather it means I side with the reds in the current battle because they are the only side offering anything that looks like real democracy - if another group offers democracy I will also likely side with them too)

And looking on the bright side, the elite backed military & judiciary coups, which sporned the red movement and increasing analysis of 'thai style democracy', has also contributed greatly to the democratic knowledge of the Thai people (and one Thaksin Shinawatra) - so that can only be good for the next time a popular leader is elected.
.

Abhisit offers a solution???

.
I may have been a bit harsh on Abhisit - he appears to have offered an alternative solution (not the 9 months delay) and the Red leaders either missed, or ignored that offer.

Get the tapes out - Did Abhisit offer a referendum on dissolution?

If Abhisit did make the offer, Day 3 talks should centre on pinning him down on a quick timetable for a combined referendum/election.

The process is simple - Thanks to the following comment by The truth is out there on Bangkok Pundit's excellent site.

"Two things come to my mind.

“make a decision based on a consensus from the entire country”

It reminds me about recall election in California. The process is quite straight forward and efficient. There are two question.
1. Do you want to recall a Governor (Do you want a new election?)
2. If majority vote for recall, who do you want to vote for?

So basically, you start by ask people if they want a new election. So problem of "hearing the the consensus of entire country is answered". If the answer is no, the second question is moot.

The nice thing is that if the answer is yes, you don't need to spend extra money for election.

Every body seem to miss one point that new election does not guarantee PT to win sufficient majority. Most likely, they will win big but probably not big enough to form government by themselves. IMO, the foot print of PT after election will be fairly similar to what it is now. It is highly possible that Dem and current coalition can win sufficient majority to form a stable government. And it will be very legit one.

Day 2 roundup: Is he afraid or is he under orders?

.
Red's say 15 days, Abhisit says 9 months

Some will think the reds are unreasonable for not accepting Abhisit's timetable, but would you be so patient in their circumstances?

For all the talk, accusations, bluster & delaying, doesn't it all come down to one question:

Do you believe in democracy or not?

Democracy is not perfect, but is anyone aware of a better system?

Like it or not, Abhisit's legitimacy IS in doubt - does anyone seriously dispute that?

No amount of smooth talking can get away from the fact that PM Abhisit is the illegitimate child of a military & judicial coup, but, there is a clear way for him to gain legitimacy, and remove once and for all any doubts.

To resolve the obvious doubt on his legitimacy, all he need do is ask the people decide, and he needs to do it as soon as possible for the sake of the country.

The current government has been in place since Dec08, another 15 days will make it nearly 500 days too many for anyone who truly believes in democracy - does Abhisit seriously expect those who have had their votes stolen to wait patiently for another 300 days?
How insensitive can he be to the spirit of democracy?

All his excuses about needing to manage the economy, amend the constitution etc, are just that: EXCUSES.

Is more, or less, economic damage likely if things are left to continue to fester?

Minor coalition parties concerns about the constitution seem insignificant when the country is in such an stalemate, and anyway, it's the Reds parties that have been punished most under the current military imposed constitution, yet they appear to be prepared to go to an election EVEN with the current rules stacked against them!

We need to ask ourselves, why doesn't Abhisit want to prove his legitimacy?
Does he believe in democracy ot not?
Is he afraid, or is he under orders?
.

Change without change

.
UPDATE:

I've slept on it, read some more reports of the 'reconciliation talks' and offer the following additional thoughts (based on a comment response I made over at Bkk Dan's site):

I’d love to believe Abhisit and his backers were genuine, but I just cannot drink their Kool-Aid – cannot see their ‘concession to talk’ as anything more than trasformismo (change without change).

The people of Thailand are more informed now than ever – yesterday’s live tv talks were better than most leaders debates I’ve seen leading up to elections in western democracies.

Come on Abhisit, do the right thing for once – stop your delaying tactics, just dissolve the house, let the people decide who they want to govern the country, and who they want to be in control of its political reform process.

If you don’t do it, the only conclusions I can reach are that you are afraid of elections, afraid of democracy, afraid of the people, and afraid of your military/elite backers (or you are not the upstanding ‘Democrat’ you make youself out to be, and are only in it for your ego, and the vested interests of your backers)

The proof will be in the pudding:
Believing Abhisit is genuine in these ‘reconciliation talks’ is the ultimate in naivety IMO (as is believing he has any legitimacy with anywhere near the majority of the Thai population – even Abhisit knows it, and thats why he will do whatever he can to delay & avoid elections – if he & his backers thought they could win an election they would jump at it, never mind the constitution & political reform

Style v's Substance (Smoke & Mirrors)

My quick thoughts on the talks between government (Abhisit) and Red Shirt leaders.

- Wow! I was out all day and got quite a shock to see the talks already happening when I got home.

- Initially I was hopeful, but seeing Abhisit in action I got that same old feeling
(he's trying to smooth things over with talk, but all the while having no intention of really following through!)

- Abhisit is clearly about 'appearing' reasonable, but delaying at all costs.
(hopefully the viewing public can see through his smoke & mirrors)

- For Abhisit and his backers this latest 'concession' is 'trasformismo' (change without change)

- Abhisit has the style, but Dr Weng & Veera have the substance
(that's my take, as a farang, but I expect various Thai groups will see it differently)

- Dr Weng scored the most points, but his lengthy speaking style is a handicap on public tv
(that said, only the most partisan would miss that he's clearly intelligent, knowledgeable, passionate and sincere)


What do I expect tomorrow?

Well, Thai politics is like a magic world to me, unfathomable! - so the only prediction I will make is that Abhisit will continue delaying, and any timetable he proposes will make sure the army reshuffle is bedded down before the ammart control is (seen to be) relinquished.


What comes first: Dissolution or Constitution changes?

Why not do both in the one stroke?
At the election, give the people a chance to choose between the 1997 or 2007 constitutions.
(whichever is chosen can be amended later anyway, through the parliamentary process)
I'm a lazy philistine when it comes to legal procedures, but am wondering why couldn't the negotiations agree that Parliament propose the 1997 constitution as the amendments to the current constitution, and seek a referendum to ratify it?
Update: Yes, I know thats unrealistic, so how about we just make the main theme of the election: 'Which political parties do the people want to be in control of leading the political reform process?' - basically let the people choose the make up of the parliament as the country embarks on another political reform process - seems fair, reasonable, sensible & logical to me (unfortunately none of those things are usually seen as desirable qualities when it comes to the Thai political system, especially on the non-red side:)

What's the minimum reds should accept before ending protests?

I'd say their bottom line should be a firm commitment that parliament will be dissolved within 2 weeks, and an election within 3 months.

Bloody Thailand - Exit Strategy/Tactical Retreat

.
Message to red protestors:

To continue now means adopting PAD type escalation tactics aimed to provoke, but you do not have the 'protection' from above that your yellow counterparts have.
Their treatment was an aberration in Thailand, you will not be treated so kindly, and you can expect the typical iron fist, not the kid gloves with which they were dealt - please save your blood for another day.

It's time to go home - you have already proven Abhisit is still afraid of elections, and prefers your blood over going to the people to test if he can truly be a legitimate PM.

Continue raising issues of double standard in the country, don't put all your faith in any leader, and try to to listen to, and understand the concerns of those who see things differently than you do.


UPDATE:

I'm pleased they didn't go home before Saturday's wonderful convoy through the streets of Bangkok - and I admit I'm a poor tactician:)

.

Less violent, but otherwise it's the same old story

.
I'm pleased that there has been no real violence to date, and it seems both the government and protesters have learned from the past.
(also more people have camera's at hand now so hopefully any actions by agent provocateur's will quickly be able to be seen as such).

My biggest complaint regarding the media coverage (including many bloggers) is that most are taking a very short term view and cannot see the wood for the trees.
Concentrating on one red herring after another misses the big picture, and plays right into the hands of those who comprise the real power in Thailand.

Most overlook how the current government came into power – no amount of spin can get away from the fact that this government is only in power because of a military & judicial coup.
The lead coalition partner, Abhisit’s (not so) Democrats, refused to participate in elections before the coup, and even after having things rigged in its favour and competitors removed, its still afraid to face the people in an election.

They also fail to look at the history of miltary coups in Thailand, where its always some military General or other deciding a group of ‘corrupt’ politicians need to be removed – the first act of those generals is always to change the constitution to exonerate themselves, and then they move on to enriching themselves and whichever network they are aligned with.
A push then comes for democracy from the people, sometimes elections are held, and sometimes another coup occurs, or even a ’self coup’.

The people are never given the chance to remove governments – The old saying: ‘The rural masses elect the governments and the Bangkok elite removes them’ is a cycle being repeated endlessly.
Like it or not Thaksin's TRT was the only government to win consecutive elections – it should have been left to the people to decide when they want to remove that government.

No lasting good will ever come from a military coup, because two wrongs will never make a right.

If anyone is interested in the background of HOW its been possible for the masses to be continually disenfranchised, they could start with books by Paul Handley & Federico Ferrara.

UPDATE:

In some private contacts it's become apparent that the point I'm trying to make above has again been missed.

For clarification: My point is that democracy has never been ALLOWED to develop in Thailand - since the change from absolute monarchy in 1932, individual players have come and gone (although some have stuck around longer than others:)

Whilst prominent individual politicians have many flaws, the real issue is the system and how military coups have not been delegitimized - ask yourself why is that so? (if you answer that it's because of corrupt politicians, then you are missing the point again:)