.
A great blog I've only just come across is Thailand's Troubles, which has a nice summary of the current situation.
Of course, the elephant in the room is still skirted around (for obvious reason) which unfortunately means the real systematic problems that are stopping Thailand from progressing are not being addressed.
.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
No Justification to crush Pro-Democray protests
.
Update 2: This Bangkok Post report gives details of the equipment the government lost in their 'non-violent' dispersal attempt on that Saturday:
"Among the firearms and other equipment claimed to have been lost during the clash were nine M16 rifles, 25 Tavor rifles, six anti-aircraft guns, 116 shields, 105 batons and 80 body armour suits.
The army also lost control of six personnel carriers and three high-mobility multi-purpose vehicles when troops abandoned them in the face of angry red shirts.
Ammunition also went missing, including 580 rubber bullet rounds, 600 anti-aircraft rounds and 8,182 M16 rifle rounds"
Any conclusions other than:
(a) government had violent 'intentions', and was incompetent?
or
(b) the equipment was left behind by watermelon soldiers to help in subsequent battles?
Update 1: This post was originally posted before the crackdown as a plea for it to not happen - after the actual crackdown, and especially after Abhisit's late night tv speech, all I can say is that I've completely given up on him. It's hard for me to believe he is even human, he's certainly no better than Thaksin, and probably much worse. Thaksin's drug war killings at least had a noble intention - there is nothing noble about Abhisit's killing to avoid going to an election!
How long can things go on like this, without one side going for broke and the shit hitting the fan?
Abhisit is the new face on an old playbook - the old style crackdowns are no longer viable, so it needs a respectable face to try to spin it as though there was no alternative but to crackdown.
I hope the red leaders are fully switched on to that aspect of what Abhisit is doing, because even though the pro-democracy side of this conflict has right on their side, they must also be seen to be reasonable.
(To spell it out: Abhisit wants to appear reasonable, and make other side appear unreasonable - the emphasis is on 'appear' in both cases)
Abhisit knows very well this aspect of the political game. He came to power promising reconciliation, he appeared very reasonable, but his real actions have not been about reconciliation at all:
- How does appointing, then keeping Kasit as FM, help reconcilation?
- How does stonewalling on the constitutional reform help reconcilation?
- How does closing PTV help reconcilation (when ASTV & NBT are still on air)?
- How does blocking Prachatai (and hassling the webmaster with lengthy jail terms) help reconciliation?
- How does stalling on bringing PAD international airport invaders to justice help reconcilation?
- Now that the boot is on the other foot, how does a complete about-face shown on statements he made regarding protesters rights, and PM's resigning, help bring about reconciliation ?
(for more examples see this revealing piece by one of Thailand's best journalists)
He is doing it again - appearing reasonable, but the reality is very different:- He offers to talk with red leaders, but creates excuses why elections cannot be held till at least 9 months have passed.
Forget about 9 months! How can the red masses, who have had their votes usurped so blatantly, be forced to endure another month, week, or even a day of living under a military/judiciary coup installed puppet PM who talks reconciliation, but in reality does everything he can to keep those masses disenfranchised?
PM Abhisit has also appeared very reasonable in dealing with protestors over the last few weeks, but if you look at all the other times he appeared reasonable, the reality was much different - you get my drift ?- the stakes have been upped in recent days - quite scary don't you think?
The world must not let him, or his minders, get away with thinking that a crackdown against pro-democracy protesters can ever be acceptable - especially when an easy solution is readily available.
I have focussed on Abhisit because he is the face of the current military/royalist overlords - we know he is expendable, but right now he's the man in the box seat, so he still has a chance to gain real legitimacy with the people. If he acted with integrity, you never know, the Thai people might warm to him, and he could one day even become a legitimate elected PM.
His first step on that road to legitimacy should be to offer dissloution/election within 3 months (Dr Weng has already said reds would accept that).
The people will never be more informed than they already are. The air would then be cleared, and the new parliament could then embark on the genuine constitutional reform process so the country can start moving forwards again.
That is the obvious solution, it is also the right thing to do given the considerable doubts as to his legitimacy arising from military & judicial interventions over the last 4 years.
No amount of smooth talking spin will ever justify a crackdown on pro-democracy protesters when there is a viable solution readily available.
Remember, no redshirt has ever said they will not accept the results of a fair election, so it should be abundantly clear they are not the real problem in Thailand.
The real problem is that there is no culture of democracy. Such a culture can only begin to develop when all sides accept election results and reject military coups or other forms of higher authority interference.
Update 2: This Bangkok Post report gives details of the equipment the government lost in their 'non-violent' dispersal attempt on that Saturday:
"Among the firearms and other equipment claimed to have been lost during the clash were nine M16 rifles, 25 Tavor rifles, six anti-aircraft guns, 116 shields, 105 batons and 80 body armour suits.
The army also lost control of six personnel carriers and three high-mobility multi-purpose vehicles when troops abandoned them in the face of angry red shirts.
Ammunition also went missing, including 580 rubber bullet rounds, 600 anti-aircraft rounds and 8,182 M16 rifle rounds"
Any conclusions other than:
(a) government had violent 'intentions', and was incompetent?
or
(b) the equipment was left behind by watermelon soldiers to help in subsequent battles?
Update 1: This post was originally posted before the crackdown as a plea for it to not happen - after the actual crackdown, and especially after Abhisit's late night tv speech, all I can say is that I've completely given up on him. It's hard for me to believe he is even human, he's certainly no better than Thaksin, and probably much worse. Thaksin's drug war killings at least had a noble intention - there is nothing noble about Abhisit's killing to avoid going to an election!
How long can things go on like this, without one side going for broke and the shit hitting the fan?
Abhisit is the new face on an old playbook - the old style crackdowns are no longer viable, so it needs a respectable face to try to spin it as though there was no alternative but to crackdown.
I hope the red leaders are fully switched on to that aspect of what Abhisit is doing, because even though the pro-democracy side of this conflict has right on their side, they must also be seen to be reasonable.
(To spell it out: Abhisit wants to appear reasonable, and make other side appear unreasonable - the emphasis is on 'appear' in both cases)
Abhisit knows very well this aspect of the political game. He came to power promising reconciliation, he appeared very reasonable, but his real actions have not been about reconciliation at all:
- How does appointing, then keeping Kasit as FM, help reconcilation?
- How does stonewalling on the constitutional reform help reconcilation?
- How does closing PTV help reconcilation (when ASTV & NBT are still on air)?
- How does blocking Prachatai (and hassling the webmaster with lengthy jail terms) help reconciliation?
- How does stalling on bringing PAD international airport invaders to justice help reconcilation?
- Now that the boot is on the other foot, how does a complete about-face shown on statements he made regarding protesters rights, and PM's resigning, help bring about reconciliation ?
(for more examples see this revealing piece by one of Thailand's best journalists)
He is doing it again - appearing reasonable, but the reality is very different:- He offers to talk with red leaders, but creates excuses why elections cannot be held till at least 9 months have passed.
Forget about 9 months! How can the red masses, who have had their votes usurped so blatantly, be forced to endure another month, week, or even a day of living under a military/judiciary coup installed puppet PM who talks reconciliation, but in reality does everything he can to keep those masses disenfranchised?
PM Abhisit has also appeared very reasonable in dealing with protestors over the last few weeks, but if you look at all the other times he appeared reasonable, the reality was much different - you get my drift ?- the stakes have been upped in recent days - quite scary don't you think?
The world must not let him, or his minders, get away with thinking that a crackdown against pro-democracy protesters can ever be acceptable - especially when an easy solution is readily available.
I have focussed on Abhisit because he is the face of the current military/royalist overlords - we know he is expendable, but right now he's the man in the box seat, so he still has a chance to gain real legitimacy with the people. If he acted with integrity, you never know, the Thai people might warm to him, and he could one day even become a legitimate elected PM.
His first step on that road to legitimacy should be to offer dissloution/election within 3 months (Dr Weng has already said reds would accept that).
The people will never be more informed than they already are. The air would then be cleared, and the new parliament could then embark on the genuine constitutional reform process so the country can start moving forwards again.
That is the obvious solution, it is also the right thing to do given the considerable doubts as to his legitimacy arising from military & judicial interventions over the last 4 years.
No amount of smooth talking spin will ever justify a crackdown on pro-democracy protesters when there is a viable solution readily available.
Remember, no redshirt has ever said they will not accept the results of a fair election, so it should be abundantly clear they are not the real problem in Thailand.
The real problem is that there is no culture of democracy. Such a culture can only begin to develop when all sides accept election results and reject military coups or other forms of higher authority interference.
Friday, April 2, 2010
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.
.
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.
.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, March 29, 2010
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?
.
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?
.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
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):
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.
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):
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
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)