If we understood human rights, we wouldn’t sacrifice them for military rule
opinion December 09, 2017 01:00 By Titipol Phakdeewanich
Special to The Nation
Tomorrow, the United Nations (UN) will commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Meanwhile Thailand, a state party to the declaration, remains under military rule with rights and freedoms curtailed ever since the 2014 coup carried out by the National Council for Peace and Order.
Ahead of the scheduled November 2018 elections, Thais are now calling for the return of normal civil liberty and freedoms. The two main political parties, Pheu Thai and the Democrats, have been pushing the NCPO junta to lift the political ban imposed over national security concerns.
The junta has continuously denied basic rights, including political rights, through strict control of public expression. Although the NCPO recently announced “human rights” as a policy priority and a national agenda, the military continues to contest the universality of human rights, claiming that national peace, security and the need to reunify have priority.
One crucial question for the NCPO is, if rights are granted by the military, can they be considered human rights?
Supporters of the military should consider a further question: Is Thailand sacrificing its commitments to the universal principle of human rights in order to facilitate the NCPO’s timeline for a return to democracy, or to maintain the military’s continued grip on power?
Throughout Thailand’s 85 years of attempts at democracy, the military has been able to reassert its central role in the political system by claiming it is defending Thailand’s cultural heritage and social order and eliminating corruption.
With a history of 19 attempted and 12 successful military coups, political rights have repeatedly been taken away, with no unified voice among Thais against the actions of the military. This was particularly so with the 2006 and 2014 coups, when a vast majority of Thais were willing to sacrifice their voting rights for military rule under the illusion that the military was an anti-corruption agent.
The concept of voting rights is enshrined in Article 21 of the UDHR: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”. But that concept is still poorly understood by many in the Thai establishment and middle class. They continue instead to disparage voting rights for the rural poor, citing their low levels of educational attainment.
Meanwhile the poor have no one in power to represent their interests and alleviate their condition.
“The economy is doing so badly for me, I am desperate for elections so that I can vote for who I want to be in Parliament,” a local farmer from Si Sa Ket province said recently, speaking anonymously.
It is time Thailand placed the universal principle of human rights on the education curriculum, alongside Thai history and cultural heritage. That move would help the nation break through the cultural barrier that exists around human rights.
While Thailand has abided by its commitments to the United Nations, including on human rights, since the inception of the UN in 1946, many Thais barely recognise the concepts of human dignity, equality and liberty because of an overriding social hierarchy they are told is central to being Thai – their Thainess.
Embracing the principles of human rights, however, does not diminish the quality of being Thai, because being born as a Thai person is after all being born as a human in a country called Thailand. Hence, it is a mistake to view national boundaries as a border that must be defended from the intrusion of “alien” human rights.
Indeed, accepting the universality of human rights cannot be simply equated with the destruction of the uniqueness and dignity of Thai culture. Instead, cultural change is a normal consequence of development, in order to create a just society where everyone is equally respected as a human.
Therefore, arguments about the need to preserve both Thai cultural uniqueness and national security not only delay the progress of human rights in Thailand. They also undermine the development of an equal and democratic society and deny the ability of Thai people to scrutinise and hold authorities to account.
Absolute trust in state authority simply lends absolute power to those who have it, leaving the public interest unprotected.
The promotion and protection of universal human rights is not only a mechanism to promote dignity, rights and liberty of individuals, but also to take back power from the state, so that people are empowered to challenge its authority.
Unfortunately, the Thai military and their supporters continue to rely on the notion of Thainess (Thai exceptionalism) to justify their lack of commitment to universal human rights.
This remains an ongoing challenge for Thailand, because the military has successfully consolidated its power, and embedded itself at the centre of the country’s politics. This presents a challenge to the UN Human Rights Council in its efforts to promote fundamental rights for Thai people, as it celebrates the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration.
TITIPOL PHAKDEEWANICH is dean of the Faculty of Political Science at Ubon Ratchathani University, and a visiting fellow at the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at the University of Warwick in England.