Article I wrote, trying to get published at Washington Post:

THAI COUP: MILITARY ELITES DISENFRANCHISING THE POOR

I was first deeply impressed by Thailand the year I studied abroad in 2001, when I decided to backpack through Southeast Asia. As I crossed over to Thailand through one of its neighbors, my surroundings changed dramatically. I moved from dirt road to pavement, citizens were better fed and healthier, my surroundings became cleaner and more organized.. I could see that Thailand was truly a social and economic leader in the region. This Thailand was free, democratic, and stable. It was a place that foreigners loved to visit, and Thai’s could be proud of.

Then the recent news - a military coup? Is this Thailand… a leader in Southeast Asia? I thought coups were a thing of the past… are we in the 21st century?

Coup Proofing China and Taiwan

Other countries in the region guard against a military coup through institutional design. China’s Hu Jintao is the current president, but also the chairman of both the Central Communist Party (CCP) and Central Military Commission (CMC). To former President Jiang Zemin’s dismay, Hu is slowly retiring the old guard and stacking the military deck with his loyalists. With a strong CCP background, and as the only non- People’s Liberation Army (PLA) member of the CMC, he ensures that the military falls subservient to the CCP.

Across the Strait, Taiwan has a military that was predominately Kuomintang (KMT) in the early days post-WWII but has since balanced out by incorporating more “locals,” aka benshenren, with a Democratic People’s Party (DPP) affiliation. This is how the current popularly elected DPP leadership keeps the wealthier and historically more powerful KMT in check and prevent a Thai-style coup. Hundreds of thousands of people are protesting DPP President Chen today, but you are not going to see a military coup any time soon. The balanced military will not move against the DPP. It is just not institutionally viable.

Contrary to the previous examples, Thailand’s history, with its 18 coups since 1932, shows that the military and government are deeply intertwined. Until this current coup, the most recent had been a bloody right-wing coup in 1976. Then comes a period of civilian rule until another brief period of military rule from 1991 to 2992. It appears that Thailand is a place where a coup – viewed as an rare occurrence in the West – is in itself a political equilibrium.

Voter Responsibility

The road toward full democracy can be long and hard, as America is learning in Iraq, and it is the aggregate citizens who walk down that road who must take full responsibility for their decisions. Thaksin’s Thai Love Thai Party (Thai Rak Thai, TRT) was elected by the people in 2005 through a Parliamentary majority. He won by a landslide in the North, Northeast, and Central regions during both 2001 and 2005 legislatives elections. His voter base is in the rural North and Central, with only 1 seat coming from Bangkok. In 2005, his coalition won 375 out of 500 (75%) seats in the legislature, with the Democratic Party coming in a distant second at 96 seats (19.2%). The more recent 2005 election is disputed since several political parties boycotted it, but Thaksin’s party led the results in the previous 2001 election by taking 49.6% of the legislature with the Democratic Party at a distant second at 25.6%. Fortunately or unfortunately, in a real democracy, you get what you ask for – the people asked for Thaksin.

In a democratic system, citizens cannot lay blame on a dictator, they can only point to themselves for choosing the official, directly or indirectly depending on the electoral system. This is also a reminder for disgruntled Democrats in America and KMT in Taiwan. Depending on the legal system, citizens can choose to elect a new candidate in the next election or remove the current representative through a referendum. Struggling through politically difficult times while operating within democratic boundaries is a part of the learning process that makes younger democracies more effective, responsive, and govern more responsibly. The emphasis is on continuing the process of democracy, not scrapping it due to a single unfavorable result.

Costs the Poor, and Benefits the Military Elites

Thai general Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the coup leader, gives the reasoning for the coup: mending the rifts caused by Thaksin that have polarized the country. Why is this a problem? Differing viewpoints are a sign of a healthy democracy because it leads to healthy debate. The US has an effective separation of powers - Executive, Legislature, and Judicial – that sparks debates, and even political fissures, but that’s the point. “Harmony” through conforming to the one official party line is dictatorship.

The real motives are clear when we examine the winners and loser. The balance sheet shows that the Thai military is gaining by preserving the status quo by hindering Thaksin’s alleged military shuffle. Thaksin has already appointed his cousin General Chaisit Shinawatra, to lead the army. General Sonthi is preserving the current military hierarchy because he, and other like him at the top of the military pyramid, is the biggest loser in the event of a reshuffle.

This coup occurs at the cost of popular decision by going against public will, especially in the rural areas. The coup will invalidate Thaksin’s supporters, most of whom live in the Northern and Central countryside, who voted Thaksin’s party into office in 2001 and again in 2005. During the current crisis, the news coverage of protests will highlight the extremes and marginalize the moderates, so public outrage against Thaksin appears stronger than the reality. Our only official record is the vote, and at the time of the 2001 and 2005 legislative elections the public voice was clearly in Thaksin’s favor. In principle, this coup is an act of disenfranchisement, not of a current or future election, but of the previous election when millions voted in Thaksin’s favor.

On 19 September 2006, Thailand’s military took their entire people a step backwards into their turbulent past by attempting to solve electoral issues through military might. Hopefully, the Thai people will truly break from the past soon to take another step forward as a positive example in political stability, democratic institutions, and voter’s voice to its regional neighbors.

David An

Researcher
Center for Strategic Studies ~ Project Asia
Center for Naval Analysis Corporation

US Fulbright Fellow, ‘06
Taiwan ~ Elections