Wednesday 30 June 2010

Democracy without liberty is illiberal democracy

Democracy without liberty is illiberal democracy

  • Published: 30/06/2010 at 12:00 AM
  • Newspaper section: News





It has been more than one month since the military operation to disperse protesters took place on the streets of Bangkok. Yet the state of emergency, which was declared at the time, still remains.

A red shirt protester kicks away a tear-gas cannister lobbed at protesters during the height of their seige in Bangkok last month.

This is apparently in order to ensure that security is maintained across the country. The decree, which looks set to be extended next week, grants the prime minister some special powers, which may be regarded as excessive.

The state of emergency decree remains in place in Bangkok and 23 other provinces in the North and Northeast regarded as strategically important red-shirt political bases. Without an independent body to verify the necessity of maintaining such draconian power in the hands of politicians during a highly sensitive period, the decision whether to keep the law in place will be almost inevitably politicised.

The action could be aimed at staving off a potential new series of red-shirt protests, something that the government itself admits even though the reasoning can by all definition only be speculation. Worse, by hanging on to the "state of emergency," the government can find itself engaging in the dangerous game of "politics of fear".

It is understandable that many Bangkokians are worried about maintaining their personal safety and would resent future disruption to their lives, which occurred when the protesters shut down business areas in the capital. Accordingly, they are likely to accept whatever approach the government wants to take in order to keep Bangkok safe from "terrorism" or, in other words, from the red shirts.

Although PM Abhisit and his government do not explicitly accuse all the red shirts of being terrorists, his repeated use of the term can lead people, especially his supporters, to arrive at such a broad conclusion.

In the eyes of the rural population, this perception goes against, even undermines, the validity of the claim to have their voices heard in the political heartland of Bangkok and by the capital-based political elite.

With the broad terrorism paint brush, the red shirts now feel that they are subject to accusation by Mr Abhisit and the momentum is there to ensure that the political rhetoric in the media reflects this government's perspective.

The truth, however, is that almost any protest movement around the world throughout history would be subject to such an accusation, as it only takes a small minority of protesters to take extreme and possibly unjustified action, whether or not their convictions are sound.

Regardless of the extent to which this is the case within the protest movement active in Thailand today, a large part of the innocent but misunderstood rural people feel tarnished by the "terrorist" tag. They are troubled by this broad label, and this negative perspective which is widely held by the more privileged urban middle-class, will ultimately undermine any attempt at national reconciliation.

If there is anything the latest development in the history of political protest has shown us, it is that Thailand has proved itself incapable of ensuring the right of individuals and groups to protest freely and openly without fear of harassment by those who hold power.

Constitutionally speaking, the political or bureaucratic office holders do so on behalf of the people, namely those they represent. Any abuse of this power is contrary to the concept of "liberal democracy" which, as leading scholar of democratisation Larry Diamond explained, "provides, by definition, comparatively good protection for human rights". Accordingly, suppressing the ability of the red shirts to express their constitutional rights is no way to end the schism, which has continued to divide Thailand these last few years.

During his remarks at the May 29 briefing with members of the diplomatic corps and journalists regarding the military's attempt to retake Ratchaprasong, PM Abhisit stated that "we wanted to solve everything through democratic means". However, his emphasis on endorsing democracy and the rule of law appears to contradict some of the approaches that the government has actually adopted. For instance, freedom of speech and expression is extremely limited for those who support the red shirts, especially in relation to the use of the Internet.

Since the Bangkok protests of 2010, restrictions and monitoring of websites have been at a high level, resulting in the closure of certain websites viewed as being supportive of the red cause.

These actions would be considered a violation of civil liberties in a liberal democratic society, and in the context of "liberal democracy", reconciliation and unity can only be achieved when fundamental rights are guaranteed while differences and disagreements are accepted.

By continuing to alienate and suppress the red shirts and by presuming that they merely act as proxies for ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra, the government can only prolong and deepen Thailand's political divide. Indeed, Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker argued that: "This thinking is a way of avoiding questions about what has been happening in Thai society over the past generation, a way of plugging one's own eyes and ears. But it leads nowhere - or to another May 19, sooner or later."

Accordingly, the people of Thailand and their representative government will at some stage have to make a choice. There is a "proto-democracy", which purports to represent the collective desire of its people but which lacks a true mandate to govern, and is in essence, an "illiberal democracy".

Or we have to move towards a fully-fledged democracy, which can rightly claim for itself the title of "liberal democracy" and can only be realised when every player sticks to the rules of constitutional law and the judiciary maintains its non-discriminatory standard.

Thailand needs to avoid the paradoxical situation described by Fareed Zakaria, an international politics commentator, in which "democracy is flourishing, liberty is not".


  • Titipol Phakdeeawanich is with the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.

Thursday 10 June 2010

Perspectives on the Current Political Divide in Thailand.

Regarding the current political situation in Thailand, the country self-evidently becoming a less pleasant place in which to live for the population, regardless of a person’s political viewpoint, social class, or geographical location. So many people are frustrated with the way the government handled the recent protests, and even many who did not support the protesting are rather unnerved by the way it all played out. Only just before the government crackdown in the centre of Bangkok. In referencing China at the time of Mao in relation to the increasing and ongoing fragmentation of Thailand over the past few years, Thais, whatever their political sympathies, never thought for a minute that their own country could become anything like that chaotic disintegration of a nation. But now, the current behavior of the smooth talking, privileged, and western educated Prime Minister Abhisit could make one feel that Thailand is steadily descending into a state that is becoming more like China, during that very era, where government propaganda was key. The dark forces of the campaign of propaganda now working its agenda into the Thai psyche, is directed towards what the current government believes is right for their own continued survival. The primary aim in this is to promote the legitimacy of the government, in order to stay in power. Freedom of speech is not what this government encourages, behaving in ways that are more totalitarian than they ever were under former Prime Minister, the exiled Thaksin Shinawatra.

Abhisit’s claim regarding his legitimacy to be Prime Minister remains unconvincing to many Thais, especially those who had voted to put Thaksin’s surrogate party in power previously, until their eventual removal from power by the forces backing the current government. Although theoretically speaking, Abhisit could try to argue that he was voted in by a majority in the parliament in the House of Representatives, that there are questions of integrity relating to his holding of power is simply undeniable, as only a minority of the population voted for this outcome. This paradox came about, as politicians were free to switch sides as incentives were made, in order to pander to the unethical behavior of self-interested politicians.

Accordingly, fresh elections are not what the Abhisit Government wants, because they know as well as everyone else knows that currently, they would most likely fail to win. So why do we fight for democracy in the first place? Without blindly supporting Thaksin, or his surrogates; if we want to promote democracy, we at least have to accept its generally agreed upon foundations. One of the only arguments where one could totally agree with Abhisit is regarding his stated belief in the rule of law, a principle he should be consistent with in practice as well as in theory. Accordingly, I believe that the best way for democracy to evolve in Thailand is to have laws that work by applying themselves with utter neutrality, without exceptions being made when it is convenient for a current government, which requires a true separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and the judiciary. Objective and non-partisan, rather than subjective and opportunist enforcement of the law is essential in dealing with corrupt politicians such as Thaksin, without resort to coup after coup, or crisis after crisis, as rivaling elites fight it out for supremacy. Sadly, Thailand has never had an independent and fully functioning legal branch of government.

Over the past few months, the schisms and hatred have been exacerbated within the country, and this can be evidenced in observing internet chatter, especially through Facebook, and other social media, and this reaction can be attributed primarily to the behavior of both the current government and especially the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation - CRES. The Internet was a useful tool for this government in mobilising its middle-class support, with the population who trend mostly to Thaksin such as the rural poor, placed at a disadvantage in this regard. The middle-class, or rather the self-defined middle-class have been easily seduced and manipulated by the arguments of the government because of their blind hatred of Thaksin.

Regarding perceptions towards the ‘Red-Shirts’, which is a coalition of anti-government forces, it is worrying to observe the attitudes of the so-called ‘educated middle-class’ of Bangkok. They generally treat the rural population without dignity or respect; that their particular needs and genuine grievances are unimportant. Although rural people who are entitled to the same citizenship rights, this prejudice is longstanding, and is now becoming heightened. The government can take much of the blame in giving out so much one-sided information, in another word, propaganda. Now the government suppresses the Red-Shirts in almost every single way, largely justified through a kind of stereotyping that works on the assumption that they, as a 100 per cent cohesive block, both support and represent Thaksin, which is simply not the case.

Of course, whilst one can hardly exclude Thaksin from any analysis of the Red-Shirts, the protests were certainly not entirely about Thaksin. Abhisit himself once said that we have to move beyond Thaksin, but HE never did. The government’s new ‘reconciliation plan’ will only divide Thailand more, and the government most likely know this; not least because of the deliberate sidelining of the Red-Shirts and their genuine grievances. The Red-Shirts continue to feel alienated by both the government and much of society, with their websites being continually monitored or blocked. The government has failed to show a sincere desire to include them within this reconciliation plan. As an example, a student from a university in Bangkok mentioned to me that he felt discriminated against because he supports the Red-Shirts, with his university directly warning students not to support them. This is not a role that any university should be playing in limiting freedom of speech and expression in such a way. How could a legitimate institution calling itself a university, even contemplate trying to force students to not to think for themselves, especially over an issue of conscience such as this? This story shows how far institutions purportedly outside of politics have become so politicised.

If Thailand collectively wants to evolve and prosper, then Thais need to learn to live with political differences, to be more accepting of the diversity and plurality of its people with their range of political opinions, objectives in life, and priorities as unique individuals.

Sunday 14 February 2010











Ban Ta-mui Village, District of Khong Chiam, Province of Ubon Ratchathani

The village is about as remote as a village can be in Thailand. It lies on the bank of the Mekong river, and is therefore right on the Laos-Thailand border. They have very little interrelationship with anyone except for trade with other remote nearby villages up to 10 km away, without which, they could not continue to live in such a remote location. Their location on the Mekong allows them to produce enough to trade in this way. At night, a few lights can be seen across the Mekong, where there is a small Lao village, people whom they continue to perceive as their 'brothers', and with whom they have some contact, which is tolerated by both governments. Although there is a nearby village on the Thai side of the border, they have only limited contact with them, as this village is of an ethnic minority in Thailand, and there is a language and dialect barrier, which makes interaction far more difficult than with their 'brothers' across the border. Such a scenario helps to capture just how remote this area is.

The border here can be considered to be to a certain limited extent, somewhat porous; as both the Thai and Laos governments tolerate this kind of local, limited interaction, which pre-exists the formalized boundary that exists between the two countries. The local people share a common ancestry, language and culture, which is the primary reason for both governments’ level of tolerance in this regard. Of course, passing through official border crossings with passports are the technical requirements for moving between countries; yet in such limited cases, these requirements are overlooked. Should trade significantly increase, or smuggling take place between villages such as these, then of course, the informal tolerance of both governments in this regard would end, further isolating such communities.

Here then, exists a certain/ interesting paradox, whereby such local border communities have extra rights not available to the general populations of either of the two nations. In the context of the citizens’ rights within nation states, these communities enjoy a certain ‘privilege’. Connected to rights is the notion of entitlement, which such communities do feel. But if such scenarios are not consistent in relation to equality under the law, then what are the wider implications of these informal accepted negations of the law itself?