Patterns in Thai Political History

A. Edward Knuth

LecturerBritish-American Studies Program

Thammasat University

Why do foreigners' opinions matter?

Anyone who is an expert is worth listening to

Outsiders provide a different perspective and can be more objective

Foreigners are not always applying 'outside' standards and can sometimes be better spokespeople for the majority of Thais in English

The Vicious Cycle of Thai Politics

Step 1. Dictatorship

Step 2. Paper democracy

Step 3. Actual democracy

Step 4. A 'Crisis'

Step 5. Military intervention

Scorecard Since 1932

12 successful coups plus 7 more unsuccessful attempts

19 Constitutions (including temporary and 'permanent')

28 heads of government: 9 elected by the people, 1 re-elected

82 years: 19 years under an elected government

Types of Crises

1. Threat to the Monarchy

2. External security threat

3. Internal security threat

4. Military in-fighting

5. Political deadlock/'Paralyzed' government

The Thaksin Era: What's different?

Prelude: The Constitution of 1997

A response to established cycle of Thai politics

Lengthy drafting procedure involving representatives from every province

Specific reforms aimed at traditional problems in Thai politics (e.g. independent agencies such as the Election Commission and NCCC)

Thaksin's Pitch to Voters in 2000/2001

He's a businessman, not a politician, and has the experience to fix the Thai economy

He's the head of a broad coalition, including some former protest leaders from the 1970s

He's a champion of the poor and will pursue populist policies that will directly benefit rural areas

He's anti-corruption (he's rich already, so why be corrupt?)

What went wrong?Three Narratives

1. Corruption/Danger

2. Class/Democracy

3. Realism/Power

Thaksin era: We're still in the cycle, but . . .

1. The nature of the crises is different

2. The use of the cycle itself as a political tactic

3. The involvement of the judiciary and independent agencies

Problems with the Yellow Narrative:

#1. Claims of corruption don't justify acting outside the democratic processes

-'Corruption' is not a magic word

-Courts and independent agencies are the proper venue

-You shouldn't use another person's alleged illegal behavior to justify your own

#2. Evidence of corruption is weak

2006 coup leaders had 2 years and unlimited power to find evidence

Rachada land case and 'policy corruption' were the result

Why can't the courts and people decide?

Problems with the Yellow Narrative:

#3. There were better solutions to the 'danger'

there was real violence and threats of violence

violence was in response to illegal activity

military could have used its power to defend democratic processes

Problems with the Yellow Narrative:

What does it mean to believe in democracy?