Crisis, brinkmanship, stalemate _ what's next?

THAI POLITICS

Crisis, brinkmanship, stalemate _ what's next?

ATIYA ACHAKULWISUT

Thursday July 03, 2008 

They may not agree on the exact causes that have led Thailand to the stalemate it is in today. A few academics, however, concur that we are witnessing a kind of political deja vu. The confrontation between the Samak government and its outside-of-parliament opposition led by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) mimicks the face-off before the Sept 19, 2006 coup, with but a few variations in terms of people involved and issues contested.

The similar tension and appearance of a political deadlock has led some people to ask: how will it be resolved? Will we witness a bloody clash? Are we heading down the same path which ends in the need for another military intervention?

Siripun Noksuan, from Thailand Democracy Watch project, Chulalongkorn University, points to the Sept coup itself as the start of this latest crisis.

''One crucial result of the coup was the dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai party, which was probably done with the hope that we would see a new batch of politicians instead of old veterans.

''Another was the drafting of the new rules _ the 2007 Constitution. Do these two acts serve the purpose they were intended for?

''No. We don't see new politicians. We see new parties, with the same old faces.''

Ms Siripun was one of the speakers at yesterday's panel discussion, ''Crisis, Brinkmanship, Stalemate: What is next for Thailand?'' organised by the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University.

She added that the lesson of the coup is that military intervention should not be allowed to happen again, as it would fail to tackle the problems the country is facing.

Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University, traces the start of the stalemate to the birth of the first Thaksin Shinawatra government about 10 years ago.

''What ensued was continued economic expansion. The catch, however, was that the benefits of that growth were concentrated among a small group of people especially in Bangkok. The prosperity was never allowed to trickle down to people in the rural sector or in the lower echelons of society.''

Then, one day, a political party found a way to capitalise on the inequality, thus unlocking the key to almost sure-fire success at the polls.

The Thai Rak Thai party captured the hopes and dreams of the have-nots. It promised _ threatened _ to redistribute the wealth generated by the economic growth to those who have never tasted it, via its many populist projects.

The problem was, there were people _ the old money _ who stood to lose from Mr Thaksin's attempt at redistribution. And they fought against it.

They are still fighting, as they see the present government led by the People's Power party as nothing but a reincarnation of the now-defunct TRT.

According to Mr Thitinan, the conflict is structural. It has not been affected by the changes during the past one and a half years and has a tendency to drag on, as each camp seems to put in more effort and up the ante as the contest continues.

Supavud Saicheua, managing director and head of research, Phatra Securities PCL, sees a great deal of economic contention in the current political crisis.

Up until the financial collapse of 1997, the Thai ruling elite, business people, middle or working class had their interests more or less allied in the continued expansion of the economy.

The 1997 bursting of the financial bubble, which occurred after a financial deregulation allowed Thai capitalists to access foreign money to fund their ventures, marked a dissent in how members of the different groups in Thai society perceived the process of globalisation.

''The elite began to distrust it. They began to feel that partaking in the globalised economy caused them to lose their economic and probably political power too,'' Mr Supavud said.

Mr Thaksin, however, is arguably the most globalised politician Thailand has ever seen, Mr Supavud added. He is one of the few politicians who has an idea about how Thailand could link up with the globalised economy, in which areas and when. In short, he showed all eagerness to plunge fully into it.

The Establishment, with increasing doubts about what harm globalisation could cause them, could not accept this.

In this light, the stalemate is not only political in nature but also very much economic, said Mr Supavud.

So, what's next? Is there a solution or way out of this crisis?

Mr Thitinan believes the Samak government is nearing its end as it has not been able to perform its duties.

A cabinet reshuffle or House dissolution might be in order and it would actually serve as a good sign, a way for the country to move out of the current impasse within democratic means.

In the long run, the main actors in the current political stage must step back from the politics of possessiveness that they have engaged in.

''The future is about compromising and sharing,'' he said, meaning both economic benefits and power.

''If the 'old money' still refuses to distribute some of the economic benefits, the tension will rise and it might explode.

''The problem is that so far the agent of change, who understood what he had to do and who could do it quickly and effectively, is seen as being dishonest. So, society will need a new batch of agents of change who have both the necessary skills, legitimacy and moral integrity, too,'' Mr Thitinan said.

Ms Siripun says that while many people are calling for some form of reconciliation as a way out of the crisis, she thinks that is not what Thailand wants at this moment.

What the country needs _ and badly _ is a better, more stringent system of checks and balances.

She noted that the judicial branch has exerted power in this area quite a lot lately, as seen in the Administration Court nullifying a cabinet resolution that endorsed a joint communique between the Thai foreign minister and his Cambodian counterpart. There is a risk in relying on the judicial review as a solution to the political problems, though.

''In reality, a court's judgement does not always put an end to any dispute. A group of lecturers from Thammasat University, for example, are arguing that the Administrative Court does not have the power to issue an injunction against the joint communique.

''The problem is, what institution do we have left that could deal with disagreement with a court's ruling?

''Also, there is the classic question of who will watch the court? Who or what will the court be accountable to?''

Ms Siripun says that she sees another contest in the current crisis. It is between the ever-expanding need from civic groups to participate in public policy-making, and a government which does not want to stray away from its traditional way of operating in a closed, know-it-all manner.

''The 1997 and 2007 constitutions open the channels for the public to participate in the administration of the country. People know of their rights and they can't be stopped.

''All the cabinet resolutions or policies will increasingly be monitored and checked by the civil society groups. But the government has not been able to adjust itself to the new demand.''

There is an opportunity in this aspect of the crisis, however.

''The government must open up more channels for public participation. That way, they can reduce the tension as well as improve the efficiency of their work,'' she said.

''For example, had they consulted the public they wouldn't now have to waste time changing the cabinet resolution regarding the Preah Vihear joint communique,'' said Ms Siripun of Thailand Democracy Watch.

(http://www.bangkokpost.com/030708_News/03Jul2008_news22.php)