Political Turmoil in Thailand

The conventions of inverted pyramid journalism mean that things like a story about increasingly high-tension clashes between protesters and police in Thailand wind up sort of burying the issue of what the dispute is about. One hesitates a bit to try to summarize the situation, since anything I do will strike a Thai person or a real specialist as overly simplistic, but I think it’s useful for people to have a summary at their disposal.

The key figure in the dispute is Thaksin Shinawatra, who became Prime Minister in February 2001. Thaksin was a populist leader with a rural economic base, who pursued policies designed to appeal to that downscale constituency who felt that Thailand’s growing prosperity had not been broadly shared. This naturally antagonized the Bangkok-centered elite which, significantly, included not only wealthy businessmen but a broader swathe of the urbanized middle classes and also important elements of the state apparatus including the security services. All this opposition led to a 2006 coup, which ended with Thaksin fleeing the country to avoid corruption charges. The coup installed in office a former general named Surayud Chulanont, who ruled until late January 2008. Upon the restoration of democracy, Thaksin’s party came back into power.

Soon enough, however, this new government was also brought down. Not, this time, through a coup. But not entirely through constitutional measures, either. Instead, a series of protests led by anti-Thaksin “yellow shirts” essentially made the country ungovernable which set the stage for parliamentary moves that brought Thaksin’s supporters down. The latest round of protests is led by pro-Thaksin “red shirts” who are trying to bring the yellow shirt faction down.

The whole thing illustrates, I think, the fact that “democracy” is a somewhat problematic concept. Peaceful demonstrations are, of course, an integral part of a democratic process. And so is popular pressure forcing political change. But at the same time, elections and adherence to constitutional methods are also integral to the idea of a democratic process. When you have so much power in the hands of street demonstrations, then you seem to have slipped off the democratic path in some key ways. But at the same time, draconian crackdowns on demonstrators are hardly the hallmark of democracy, either. Democracy as we understand it simply assumes a baseline level of public consensus such that opposition party leaders won’t seriously try to challenge the legitimacy of election winners. When that consensus doesn’t exist, things start getting very fuzzy. You can see some of this on display in Georgia, where yesterday’s hero of democracy is now facing a mass protest opposition movement of his own.