| |
Debate
“There is a lot of money
in these projects”
Democracy put to the test
The dawn of genuine
development policy
05/2006 |
|
[ Comment ]
Democracy put to the test
Thailand’s Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra stepped down last month, after winning parliamentary elections, which all major opposition parties had boycotted. Shortly before D+C/E+Z went to print, King Bhumibol stated that it was “impossible for democratic elections to have one party, one man”. He demanded that top-tier judges sort out the “mess” or resign. At the time, our comment was already written.
[ By Michael H. Nelson ]
After months of demonstrations against him and two days after a formal victory in a general election held with short notice, Thailand’s Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has thrown in the towel and declared that he will not stay Prime Minister. While the Economist of London saw this as a “blow to Thai democracy”, the Bangkok daily The Nation claimed it was a “triumph for democracy”. The difference should not be attributed to ignorance among British journalists, however. After all, The Nation put its credibility at risk by trying to mobilise the masses against Thaksin for months.
A lot remains unclear in Thailand. Did Thaksin really “step down” as the demonstrators had demanded? Or has he – more likely – outsmarted them? After all, Thaksin is still in the game. He will remain an MP as well as chairman of his party Thai Rak Thai (TRT). He will be in controll of his party in parliament and determine who will become Prime Minister. In addition, the next government will only be in office for a transitional period. Next year at the latest, elections will be held again according to new rules which an independent commission has yet to design. It is likely that Thaksin will run – and win – again. His “decision to step down” would then have only been a tactical manoeuvre, weakening his opponents.
His electoral success does have some blemishes. The three most important opposition parties boycotted the polls. In a number of districts the candidates of Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party did not receive the required 20 % of the eligible vote – although there was no one else running.
The question of how healthy Thai democracy is will re-arise soon. Most experts do agree that Thaksin is a threat to democracy. His wealth has allowed him to buy himself a party, win three elections, control the electronic mass media, and bypass the constitution. He only began speaking of democracy when he could use the term as a weapon against demonstrators.
Thaksin saw himself as a head of government similar to the CEO of a large corporation. His role models were the leaders in neighbouring Singapore and Malaysia. He also stands accused of repeated conflicts of interest – most recently, when he arranged the tax-free sale of his company Shin Corp to a firm owned by Singapore’s government.
But that is only half the story. The other half is the unprecedented campaign against Thaksin. It was driven by personal motives of his opponents and launched a few months after his overwhelming victory in the elections in February 2005. When the protests reached their peak just before the elections in April, Thaksin was depicted as a demon, nothing short of the reincarnation of Hitler. A lot of agitation had the sole aim of spreading bottomless hatred against Thaksin.However, no dictator would have tolerated such protests and the constant bombardment of criticism in the papers. Much less would any dictator have called a general election. These facts fell by the wayside in Bangkok’s emotionally charged mudslinging. Fortunately for the urban protestors, the rural population, most of whom supported Thaksin, could not be mobilised to the same extent as his detractors in the capital.
In spite of today’s charged atmosphere, the protests and Thaksin’s temporary resignation may yet serve to strengthen Thai democracy. For that to happen, Thaksin would have to show respect for the rules in an open political system when returning to power. On the other hand, his opponents would have to revisit the way they protest and find the path to a democratic political culture. Finally, newspapers should fulfil the expectations placed on professional journalism and promote the diversity of opinions, rather than play partisan politics.
Dr. Michael H. Nelson
is a visiting scholar at the Faculty of Political Science at
Chulalongkorn University in Thailand.
mhnelson_bkk@yahoo.de
|
