International Crisis Group

A Coup Ordained? Thailand’s prospects for stability

Bangkok/Brussels  |   3 Dec 2014

Martial law has brought calm but not peace to Thailand’s febrile politics. The military regime’s stifling of dissent precludes a frank dialogue on the kingdom’s future and could lead to greater turmoil than that which brought about the May 2014 coup.

A nine-year cycle of popular protests followed by military and judicial interventions to oust elected governments has left the country deeply polarised. The 22 May military coup brought an end to sometimes violent street protests but not to political uncertainty: equipped with absolute power, the ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) quashes dissent and remains vague about the timeline for a return to electoral democracy. The International Crisis Group’s latest report, A Coup Ordained? Thailand’s Prospects for Stability, examines the conflict’s underlying causes and warns that, by curbing the power of elected representatives in favour of appointed officials, the coup makers risk yet another round of violent conflict.

The report’s major findings and recommendations are:

• The 22 May coup demonstrated the failure of the 2006 coup and subsequent governments to address the factors underpinning Thailand’s protracted conflict. More than ever, the society is riven across regional, ethnic and quasi-ideological lines, by deep income inequality and by a difficult relationship between Bangkok and its peripheries.

• At the heart of the turmoil is not only a political struggle but disagreement over what constitutes legitimate authority, with some regarding the popular ballot as paramount and others regarding majoritarianism as another form of tyranny, requiring strong checks and balances by the establishment. In the background, a looming royal succession – prohibited by law from being discussed – adds to the uncertainty.

• To achieve its stated goal of establishing a durable democracy, the NCPO must encourage the development of a national dialogue, provide for meaningful political participation of all and reach out particularly to those in the North and North East who believe they have been serially disenfranchised by the Bangkok establishment. Failure to do so risks an eventual clash between the army and protesters, such as those that resulted from the 1991 and 2006 coups.

“The military’s apparent prescription, the deliberate weakening of elected leaders in favour of unelected institutions, is more likely to bring conflict than cohesion” says Matthew Wheeler, South East Asia Analyst. “It will deepen divisions while doing further damage to the institutions best suited to safeguard the rights of political minorities, root out corruption and resolve social conflict”.

“Thai society is both deeply divided and – now – accustomed to having a political voice”, says Jonathan Prentice, Chief Policy Officer and Acting Asia Program Director. “Stability will remain elusive unless Thailand forges a political path in which all Thais respect the majority vote and see their own concerns acknowledged”.

READ FULL REPORT

Female teacher killed in Thai Muslim south | Anadolu Agency

BANGKOK - Thailand’s south awoke to fresh violence Thursday morning, as the military government continues to plan peace talks with insurgents, which have been suspended for nine months.

Police lieutenant Pramote Chuichuey told the Anadolu Agency that a bomb exploded as a group of officers escorted teachers to a school in the Kokpo district of Pattani, killing a 28-year-old female and injuring another and a policeman.

“The bomb, contained in a gas tank, was buried on the side of the road,” he said, adding that insurgents had detonated it remotely as the motorbike convoy passed.

Teachers are the frequent targets of insurgents in the south - whose population is majority ethnic Malay Muslim - as they are considered symbols of the Thai central State, against whom insurgents are fighting. 

FULL ARTICLE (Anadolu Agency)

Photo: Seamus/flickr

Thai junta aims to restart Muslim south dialogue

More than a year after previous talks stalled due to Thailand’s political crisis, the military has announced it will attempt to restart a peace dialogue with insurgents in the country’s Muslim-majority south demanding political autonomy.

The bitter conflict, rooted in historical distrust between Malay Muslims and Thai Buddhists, has killed over 6,000 people and injured around 10,800 since January 2004.

National Security Council Secretary-General Thawil Pliensri declared over the weekend that the talks with southern rebels would reconvene before the end of this month, in agreement with the junta.

The dialogue was initially started in March 2013 by then Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s civilian government, but was suspended last December as massive anti-government protests paralyzed the capital.

Since the May 22 coup, the junta has installed a series of reforms aimed at bringing together the two quarrelling factions - Red Shirts (opponents of the military and bureaucratic establishment) and Yellow Shirts (ardent royalists opposed to the governments of Yingluck and elder brother former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra) protesters - before new elections are held in October next year.

It now appears to be turning its attentions to the south.

FULL ARTICLE (World Bulletin)

Photo: Thomas Wanhoff/flickr

Thailand needs friends to help it through its crisis | Jonathan Prentice

Jonathan Prentice is Crisis Group’s Chief Policy Officer. 

“Usually, in the past, we would have had a coup by now,” said one retired senior Thai official this week about his country’s travails. He didn’t mean the absence of a coup marked progress; he was reflecting a widespread resignation that without action by some external force – such as the military – the crisis being played out in Bangkok risked running the country into the ground.

Thailand faces truly existential challenges. It is riven by social, economic, ideological and regional divisions. Resignation seems to give way only to heightened extremism; vituperative intolerance has damaged any prospect of talks. Outside powers should not misinterpret a lull in the streets as progress. Without a concerted attempt to alter course, Thailand remains at risk of tipping into violent confrontation.

How did things come to this? The government called elections for 2 February after protests led by former members of the Democrat party persuaded the prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, to withdraw an inflammatory amnesty bill that would have annulled the 2008 abuse-of-power conviction of her brother, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Instead of channelling the dispute into the political arena, protesters occupied Bangkok’s streets, calling for Yingluck’s resignation and an appointed government.

Boycotted by the Democrat party, boycotted and disrupted by anti-government protesters, the February poll had no cathartic effect. Yingluck’s administration continues to face pressure from protests, the courts and nominally non-partisan watchdog agencies. Indeed, the constitutional court today voided the elections, throwing yet more uncertainty on an already confused situation. But an appointed government – an ever more likely proposition – would almost certainly provoke a backlash by “red shirt” Shinawatra supporters, who have seen every government they elected since 2005 undemocratically removed.

Just off-stage, and far more significant to Thailand’s immediate future than either Yingluck or her street-based opponents, are three sets of characters.

First, there is Thaksin: to some, a politician who finally gave voice to the aspirations of the rural north and northeast; to others, a Voldemort-like figure who, even in exile, is omnipresent, able and willing to sacrifice the nation to his limitless ambition. Few express a middle line but many miss the fundamental dilemma. Whatever his virtues or sins, Thaksin, politically active, will remain a source of extreme division; but the converse – that his removal will bring union – does not hold up. Thaksin is both cause and symptom of Thailand’s irreversible political reality: it is the north and northeast, rather than Bangkok, the Thai establishment and the south, that have the electoral clout to determine who is in government.

Second, the military. They’re not shy about politics – in 2006 they ousted Thaksin – or in stamping down protests, as they did with extreme prejudice against red shirts in 2010. Currently, their intentions remain unclear. Burned by experience of recent interventions, they may want to stay on the sidelines but are unlikely to if they believe their core interests, or the integrity of the state, are in jeopardy.

And, finally, the monarchy, discussion of which is circumscribed by vigorously enforced lèse majesté laws. The elderly king’s health renders unlikely his intervention in the current crisis. Most royalists loathe Thaksin and are anxious about succession. Partisan appeals for royal intervention have helped to undermine perceptions of the monarchy as above politics. Long a byword for national stability, the monarchy finds itself constrained from playing a mollifying role, on the cusp of a new era amid much uncertainty.

So what’s the answer to Thailand’s dilemma? The opposition demands reform before elections; the government the reverse. Squaring this circle demands compromise. Protesters need to accept that the views of a majority as expressed at the ballot box cannot systematically be overturned by the minority. The government, its supporters and Thaksin need to accept that long-term stability requires that their opponents’ concerns be addressed.

An agreement might work as follows. The democratic process should be upheld and Yingluck permitted to form a government, ideally drawn from a base broader than just her party. Recognising the country’s divide, she could commit to staying in power for one year while a national dialogue takes place. Such a dialogue, which would need to be both balanced and truly reflective of all interests, could air the country’s ills, whether over the rule of law, corruption, growing regionalism or even the separation of powers. Yingluck’s administration should culminate in a referendum on a new constitution paving the way for fresh elections. The crown and the military could endorse such choreography.

What Thailand needs are friends, domestic and international, to help it confront, not gloss over, the country’s deep fissures. Seeking absolute victory, wrapped in a cloak of righteous principle, is not working. It is pushing Thailand ever closer to a precipice. Time, now, to try compromise and dialogue.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE (The Guardian)

Photo: Victor Dumesny/flickr

Thai society ‘needs to achieve a fresh consensus’ | Gabriel Dominguez

Protesters prevented millions of Thai voters from casting their votes in a contentious general election, which could further increase divisions in Thailand’s already polarized society. Officials said about 130,000 security personnel were deployed to ensure the smooth running of the poll.

Although voting proceeded peacefully in most areas across the country, protesters opposed to the vote forced a number of polling stations to close or prevented them from opening, particularly in Bangkok and the country’s south, considered an opposition stronghold. The election had been overshadowed by months of anti-government demonstrations aimed at toppling the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, whose opponents accuse her of corruption.

Deutsche Welle interviewed Matthew Wheeler, our Southeast Asia analyst, who said the election may serve to diminish some popular support for the street protests, but it is unlikely to resolve the country’s political impasse.

FULL INTERVIEW (Deutsche Welle)

Photo: jfantenb/flickr

Catch up on the world’s conflicts in this month’s CrisisWatch map.