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.
