: Nguyen : What coup?
Published in Meeting Place, 1(2), Winter 2006. An
updated version of this op-ed is published in Eureka
There is something ironic about staging a military coup against
a popularly elected government in order to uphold democracy. But
this is exactly what coup leaders in Thailand claimed to have done.
That the bloodless coup happened in one of the most admired democracies
in the region and that it prompted only a casual reaction from the
locals, highlights a major paradox in Thai democracy which is both
worrying and hopeful.
With Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra across the globe in New
York, the military, led by Muslim army chief General Sondhi Boonyaratkalin,
moved to oust a government that in the past year has become increasingly
destabilising. Referring to themselves as the “Council for
Democratic Reform”, the junta declared martial law, revoked
the constitution, dissolved parliament, censored the media and banned
Announcing the changes, General Sondhi said the country’s
first coup in 15 years was necessary to heal rifts in Thai society.
He accused Thaksin of “undermining the democratic norms”
and of “harming the dignity” of Thailand’s greatly
revered king. The military commanders also referred to “unprecedented
division in the country, widespread corruption [and] nepotism,”
as being among the catalysts for their actions.
The complaints against Thaksin are not far off the mark. Thaksin’s
wealth and power, which once satisfied Thailand’s need for
political stability, also enabled him to undermine institutions
designed to preserve political checks and balances. Critics complained
that he used his massive wealth to file anti-defamation lawsuits
against the media and his vocal opponents. He is also accused of
nepotism and cronyism in a number of state-initiated mega-projects
and in his business dealings.
This style of bullyboy governance explains the casual response
from many Thais who perhaps saw no difference between a slow or
speedy death for democracy. At least now there is a possibility
for change, they say. The memorable images of people offering flowers
to troops suggest that many Thais are relieved, if not glad, to
see the self-made billionaire go, even if the means were less than
ideal. “It’s a military coup to overthrow an undemocratic
democratically elected regime,” declared a former senator
and civil society activist, Jon Ungpakorn.
The paradoxes of this coup do not end here. Andrew Walker notes
in the Canberra Times that much of the groundwork for the
coup had been laid by self-declared advocates of democracy, including
sections of civil society and the Bangkok “elite”, lead
by media mogul and former Thaksin crony Sondhi Limthongkul. With
most of the anti-government rallies concentrated in Bangkok, Walker
says the advocates for democracy surrounded “themselves with
the symbolism of an unelected monarch” and boycotted Thaksin’s
snap referendum-like election in April.
The issue would not have been so complicated but for Thaksin’s
popular support among the nation’s poor. He was seen as a
political innovator who introduced policies and programs which fostered
entrepreneurship and helped the poor. His government gave the rural
poor government-subsidised health care and introduced a debt moratorium.
They paid the incumbent government in kind by giving Thaksin’s
Thai Rak Thai party an overwhelming victory at last year’s
general election and again in April this year.
However, several months have passed since the last election and,
in rural Thailand, the impact of the king’s tacit endorsement
of the coup remains unclear. The few political protests against
the coup indicate that there may have been a mood swing outside
the nation’s capital. This notion is supported by results
of a survey of 2000 people conducted by the Bangkok Post on
the first day of Thailand’s new military rule – before
strict censorship laws were in place – which found nearly
84 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of the regime change,
with 75 per cent believing that the coup would improve the political
This highlights a final paradox of what Colum Murphy of the Far
Eastern Economic Review calls “Thai-style democracy”
which fuses the popular will with the unquestioned authority of
the king. This is the only system that will work for Thailand, the
king’s right-hand man, General Prem Tinsulanonda, was quoted
as saying. “We will never be a republic or without a king,”
he said in an interview on the day of the coup.
The notion that the Thais love their democracy as much as their
king is hinted at in an upcoming report on Asia Pacific non-governmental
organisations’ (NGOs) perceptions of Australia conducted by
Uniya Jesuit Social Justice Centre. In the survey, Thai NGOs were
asked how they rate the importance of a series of foreign policy
goals. Promoting democracy in the region was rated fourth among
eleven policy goals, with eight out of ten NGOs claiming that it
is very or fairly important.
Interestingly the survey also found that promoting democracy and
human rights in Asia were rated ahead of the need to strengthen
the local economy. While it is not easy to compare NGO opinion with
public opinion, a similar survey in Australia by the Lowy Institute
in 2005 found almost an opposite set of priorities among Australians.
Respondents rated strengthening the Australian economy (with 94
per cent saying it was very or fairly important) ahead of promoting
democracy abroad (61 per cent). The survey found that for at least
one group of Thais, a group most likely to have supported the coup,
democratic values themselves are not questioned.
While democratic institutions in Thailand may have taken a step
backward last month, it would be a mistake to think, as some cynics
have claimed, that the Thais’ casual approach to the eighteenth
coup in 74 years reveals a national disposition towards authoritarianism,.
The fact that so many Thais were conscious and concerned about Thaksin’s
electoral rigging and cronyism is hardly a sign of democratic complacency.
To make a comparison, perhaps Australian politics would be in a
different place today if the public showed the same levels of consciousness
and concern over issues of democracy and public accountability as
they do over interest rates and petrol prices.
With the junta making good its promise on an interim prime minister
within a fortnight of the coup, the onus is now on those who applauded
the coup to ensure that the democratic institutions they had previously
enjoyed are not just returned, but strengthened.
It is hopeful to know that there are already signs of democratic
agitation, despite a ban on political activities. NGOs and civic
groups from across the nation are planning a massive gathering to
discuss political and constitutional reforms. Thousands of people
are expected to join the three-day Thai Social Forum in one of the
biggest gatherings in Thailand of academics and social activists
in years. Ahead of this meeting, the organisers have released a
petition which called on the junta to lift martial law, revoke its
ban on political gatherings and end media interference. This is
a positive sign and a reminder to the West not to brush off democracy
– Thai-style – just yet.
* Minh Nguyen is a researcher at Uniya Jesuit Social Justice
Centre and has authored several reports on the human rights situation
in the Asia Pacific region.
print this page
© 2003-6 Uniya, PO Box
522, Kings Cross NSW 1340
Tel: +61 2 9356 3888 Fax: +61 2 9356 3021