Thursday 16 June 2016

Junta’s soft power and the coming Thai-style democracy

Junta’s soft power and the coming Thai-style democracy

Is the military to become the one-stop-shop for the ills of our society?
The junta still claims to be paving a path back to democracy, even after two fraught years of demoralising and unapologetic military rule. Their hopes of progress now seemingly rest on the long-awaited constitutional referendum scheduled for August 7.

For the generals, this vote is intended to provide concrete assurance to both the Thai public and Western nations that Thailand has not turned its back on democracy. But all the while, the military has been manoeuvring to establish itself as the one-stop-shop for the resolution of Thailand's societal ills.

Moreover, despite its determined efforts to persuade a majority of Thais that the new constitution will benefit the country, this remains in serious doubt for many.

The core concern is the whether the current charter draft can bring a form of democracy that is acceptable to Thais as well as the international community. Critics say its passage would be a crucial step in the military's push to institutionalise its primacy in a "Thai-style" democracy.
The past two years has seen a new norm established for the role of the military, with most Thais more accepting of its expanded civilian remit that they credit with bringing back order to the streets.

In recent months, the military has stepped up its soft-power approach through rural developmental programmes under the Internal Security Operations Command, focusing on the Northeast especially. The aim is to build trust and political support among rural folk who remain suspicious of a military they see as opposed to their interests. Sceptics have been surprised by the discipline and respect displayed by soldiers in developmental interactions with the long-disregarded and disparaged rural poor.

For instance, in politely declining villagers' offer of food and other gifts in return for their help, the military is challenging - albeit in a small way - an entrenched patronage system that underpins social, political and economic injustices in daily life.

Yet that gesture must be placed in the wider context, of a Thailand that remains undemocratic - labelled "Not Free" by rights NGO Freedom House.

"Normal service" was resumed with the release of the Election Commission's official referendum campaign song, which panders to stereotypes of Isaan folk as ignorant, politically unaware and unable to think for themselves, in contrast to the democracy-loving southerners. The lyrics reflect a patronising view prevalent among the urban middle class and came as no surprise to those familiar with Thai political rhetoric.

The junta's current strategy is likely influenced by the outcome of the 2007 constitutional referendum. Yet, while just over 56 per cent voted "yes" to that draft charter, the "no" vote was more than 41 per cent - and 48 per cent of those votes came from Isaan. No surprise then that governmental agencies should paint an unflattering picture of this "rebellious and undeserving constituency".

Resorting to the politics of stereotypes, however, is now preventing Thailand from recognising core principles of democracy such as inclusiveness and equality of opportunity. The attempt to exclude or marginalise large swathes of the populace based on outdated stereotypes obviously violates these principles.

The situation is exacerbated when enough people are convinced by this very approach, which acts to create self-reinforcing societal illusions that Thais are now struggling to break out of.

"I heard that the government will hand out copies of the [draft] constitution, so I am now waiting to read it," said an anonymous farmer from Nam Yuen district, Ubon Ratchathani. "We don't know much about the [constitutional] referendum, because we live in a village and we only hear about it on the news," said another resident of the district who also wished to remain anonymous.

Rather than ignorance, these responses are reflect limits to access of information and freedom of expression - especially when open debate and criticism of the charter draft are forbidden.

Even so, such responses are not so very different from those of middle-class citizens, who are apparently little-the-wiser. The arguments of these more "educated" people are just as likely to reflect what they have gleaned from the news, since few Thais of any social class have actually read the draft constitution.

Disturbing to witness is the extent to which Thais continue happily to play ball with authoritarian state structures in the belief that they will be beneficiaries, even if this means that others must lose out.

With the generals having convinced themselves of their necessary status as Thailand's guardians and caretakers, their prolonged stewardship will likely help instil the same belief in a great many more Thais, also.

And the ultimate consequences? That these prevailing attitudes will almost inevitably characterise the coming "Thai-style" democracy, whether or not the impetus comes from the military/political establishment or a belated grass-roots revival. Meanwhile those hoping for meaningful democratic progress could be left disappointed.

Titipol Phakdeewanich is dean of the Political Science Faculty at Ubon Ratchathani University, and a visiting fellow at the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at the University of Warwick in Britain.




Wednesday 18 May 2016

A summary translation of my interview in Matichon, of the 18th of May, 2016, regarding the second human rights review of Thailand by the United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group, on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

The following, is a summary translation of my interview in Matichon, of the 18th of May, 2016, regarding the second human rights review of Thailand by the United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group, on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), in Geneva:

The national report on the human rights situation, presented by the Thai delegates, was not entirely in line with the reality on the ground, especially with regard to freedom of expression. There are currently a number of legal mechanisms that suppress freedom of expression instead of promoting it, [for example Section 44 of the Interim Constitution, and Section 116 of the criminal code].

It is clear that [the level of freedom of expression in Thailand] falls below the international human rights standard. People only have a very limited space to express their opinion [on the current draft of the Thai constitution] in the lead up to the constitutional referendum.

Indeed, the human rights of a number of institutions within Thailand have been violated by the National Council for Peace and Order(NCPO). For example, after speaking at a public seminar on the constitutional referendum at Chulalongkorn University, Benjarat Sae Chua, a lecturer from the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies at Mahidol University, was "invited" by the police to explain why she distributed handouts, listing 7 negative points about the current draft constitution.

Instead of suppressing debate and criticism, the NCPO should permit and support human rights activists and institutions. Such tolerance would open up space for public discussion within Thailand, and would also be welcomed by, the international community.

At the UPR, other ASEAN members avoided commenting on certain politically sensitive issues, maintaining their founding principle of non-interference. However, this reluctance prevents Thailand and ASEAN from making progress on human rights.

Thailand's government has cited cultural exceptionalism to justify its actions to the rest of the world. Of course, we are culturally different, but human rights are universal, and Thailand is a signatory to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Thailand therefore has a commitment to uphold the human rights of its citizens.

It is essential to ensure that Thai people are free to express their opinions on the constitutional referendum. Those who share the concerns of the international community should not be accused of betraying the country. This kind of nationalist rhetoric should be ended.

In relation to the comments from U.S. Ambassador Glyn T. Davies, his opinion is neither surprising or unusual, and merely represents the consistent stance of U.S. policy towards Thailand. Instead of seeing such criticism as a form of interference, Thailand should accept constructive interventions from its allies.

Thailand has shown its ambition to retain its place on the world stage by sending a delegations to the UPR. Therefore, it important for Thailand to consider the international standard of human rights, not the current Thai standard. The challenge for Thailand is to upgrade its human rights standard to be more consistent and synchronised with the international ones. This will show whether the country wants to be part of the international community or to isolate itself from the rest of the world.



Friday 22 April 2016

A summary translation of my interview in Matichon

The following, is a summary translation of my interview in Matichon, of the 22nd of April, 2016, regarding the suppression of freedom of expression in the lead-up to the Thai Constitutional Referendum, scheduled to be held this August: “The new restrictions will add to the existing restrictions that include Section 44 of the 2014 Thai Interim Constitution, and Section 116 of Thai Criminal Code. It is important to ensure that people are free to express their opinions, because no one can have absolutely and perfectly read and understood this draft. This is why it is important that the NCPO allow for a public debate on the issues relating to the draft. Under the current political circumstances, the idea of “freedom of expression” has been interpreted [by the NCPO and the Thai junta] to mean a pushing for political mobilisation, which is not always the case. But, we are now talking about the freedom of expression to criticise the new constitution, and this is not about criticising the NCPO. This constitution will be the supreme law, which will significantly effect all Thais, and, therefore, Thais should be free to express whether or not they agree with the new constitution. If Thailand is truly attempting a return to democracy, then such a process should at least start with the referendum. The appointment of senators will enable the NCPO to retain power even after any elections [and, if the constitution is passed by the referendum, then it is expected that Thailand will hold a general election in 2017], and this is one of the main motivations in pushing this current draft [of the constitution]. As a result, the upcoming election will, in effect, only be a mechanism for the NCPO to maintain their grip on power, rather than for returning democracy to Thailand. This is in the interests of the military, in foreign policy terms, because at least they will then be able to argue that a new government has been democratically elected. And, this is why we are observing more restrictions around the referendum, as the NCPO and the Thai junta are now attempting to ensure that this constitution can pass, because it will provide the authorities with some semblance of credibility amongst the international community.”





Tuesday 29 March 2016

Thailand’s new constitution falls short of return to democracy, critics say

I was quoted in this article.

Thailand’s new constitution falls short of return to democracy, critics say

By Richard C. Ehrlich and Special to the Washington Times - - Tuesday, March 29, 2016
BANGKOK, Thailand —


Thailand's coup-installed military regime unveiled a long-awaited new draft constitution Tuesday reserving six seats in the legislature for the security forces, allowing for an unelected prime minister and setting up new checks on popular rule — a blueprint critics here say only pushes a return to democratic rule for a key U.S. ally even further into the future.

The junta headed by Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, a former army chief, said it will permit about 50 million eligible voters to vote on its constitution in a referendum on Aug. 7 — but anyone who criticizes the charter too strongly could be jailed for 10 years.

If the constitution is approved, nationwide parliamentary elections could be held in 2017.

"The important thing about this constitution — although there is no statement that people have the power — everybody has rights, everybody is equal, everybody is provided with protection," said Meechai Ruchupan, chairman of the junta's appointed Constitution Drafting Committee, displaying to reporters the 105-page, 279-article constitution.

The traditionally close relations between Bangkok and Washington have been strained in recent years amid growing criticism of the Thai government's record on civil liberties and human rights from governments and private activists.

The junta, which seized power in a May 2014 coup, calls itself the National Council for Peace and Order. The proposed constitution allows the NCPO to appoint a panel which chooses Parliament's 250-member Senate, including six seats for the head of the army, navy, air force and national police, plus the military's supreme commander and defense permanent secretary.

Critics describe the Senate plan as a "coup in disguise," the Bangkok Post reported in mid-March when details first emerged.

The Senate can stage a no-confidence vote against a future elected government, which would probably be a coalition of parties.

If the move gains enough support in Parliament's lower House of Representatives, the government could be brought down.

The bicameral Parliament could also select a candidate as prime minister who is not a parliamentarian or even a politician.

That person could become prime minister if the appointed Senate approves.

Mr. Prayuth oversaw the writing of the constitution after he led the 2014 coup which toppled Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and ended the previous charter.

"Please do not assume the [NCPO] government wants to stay in power," Mr. Prayuth said on March 18. " ... We want the Senate to take care [of Thailand] for a certain period of time so the country can move forward for about five years."

It is unclear if their opposition will be enough to stop the constitution, which would be Thailand's 20th in the past 84 years, punctuated by more than a dozen coups. Critics will have to watch their language, the government cautioned

"People who propagate information deemed distorted, violent, aggressive, inciting or threatening so that voters do not vote, or vote in a particular way, shall be considered as disrupting the referendum," the Election Commission said on Monday. Violators can be imprisoned up to 10 years and fined up to $5,600.

But some are already speaking up.

"I will definitely reject this most horrible draft charter," said Weng Tojirakarn, an influential leader of the so-called Red Shirts, the faction that backed Ms. Yingluck and her family.

"Having coup makers drafting the charter cannot ever make it democratic," Mr. Weng told the Khaosod news agency Tuesday. "It is like our ears, eyes and hands are being tied or shut."

The new constitution's provisions for unelected senators and other clauses are widely perceived as bid to prevent Ms. Yingluck and her more popular brother, exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, from returning to power.

"The key concern of the military junta is to act to ensure that [Mr. Thaksin's party] can never win a majority, for as long as he continues to retain his still considerable popularity," Titipol Phakdeewanich, dean of the faculty of Political Science at Ubon Ratchathani University, said in a recent interview.

"Thailand is simply an autocratic society that occasionally toys with democracy, or a stop-start democracy that regrettably retreats into authoritarianism, each decade or so," Mr. Titipol said.