The International

After two months of political demonstrations and civil violence in Bangkok and across Thailand’s provinces, leaders of the Red Shirt protest group have decamped from their battle for political change and surrendered to the Thai government.

The saga, which started in March and ended on May 18, was punctuated by increasing onerous events. The Red Shirts, a group primarily made up of rural Thai from the country’s Northern regions, staged marches and demonstrations in Bangkok. The situation escalated and the Thai military confronted the protesters. This started a pattern of endless violence where neither side would give any ground peacefully. The Red Shirts moved from one area to another in the nation’s capital, taking control and installing camps in strategic locations: the downtown shopping district, the financial center, the city’s Lumpini Park. Protesters closed roads and built barricades, which were crushed by the Thai military in the final siege.

Despite the resolve of the Red Shirts, a mandatory curfew imposed by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has emptied the city of the entrenched protesters (http://nyti.ms/b1uzMK). The Red Shirts have left the section of Bangkok they had been occupying since mid-March, but there is no promise that the violence and sociopolitical unrest is over. No negotiation between the Red Shirts and the government has been reached and Mr. Abhisit has thus far refused to listen to the demands of the protesters across the nation who are calling for the dissolution of parliament and new elections (http://bit.ly/aNYOuh).

The roots of the current situation reach back into Thailand’s modern history. The country is oft-subjected to political unrest and the events of this spring are securely tied to the 2006 overthrow of then-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. But the situation can be traced back long before Mr. Thaksin was removed, dating back through decades of economic inequality and unstable democracy.

Democracy in Thailand

Thailand was strictly a monarchy until 1932, when a bloodless revolution and a looming coup d’état threatened to dethrone King Prajadhipok. Fearing he would lose control of his county, the king issued a short statement, changing the political identity of the nation:

"I am willing to surrender the powers I formerly exercised to the people as a whole, but I am not willing to turn them over to any individual or any group to use in an autocratic manner without heeding the voice of the people.”

King Prajadhipok then signed Thailand’s first of seventeen constitutions. Thailand would still have a king, but the country would now operate through a combination of parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy (http://bit.ly/cIbHS5).

Since 1932, Thailand has had 27 prime ministers over a period of 78 years, interim leaders excluded. Of those 27, only one completed a full term: Mr. Thaksin. Although many served multiple terms, all of the other prime ministers resigned, were forced out by parliament or the Constitutional Court, or were removed through a military coup (http://bit.ly/alJ7Ip). The only other exception to the rule was Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, who himself led two coups and served as prime minister from February 1958 to December 1963, before dying in office.

In the country’s recent political history, there have been only six years that could actually be considered democratic prior to 1985, claims The Asian Barometer, a research program on regional politics sponsored by Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, in its working paper on Thailand (http://bit.ly/cIbHS5). Mr. Thaksin was ousted in a bloodless military coup in 2006 while he was out of the country. Since then, there have been four other PMs, one of which served eight months and another who served just four.

Mr. Thaksin’s rise to power

After founding the populist Thai Rak Thai political party in 1998, Mr. Thaksin ran for and won the prime minister seat in 2001. Appealing to poor and indebted farmers, Mr. Thaksin promised and delivered a number of economic reform policies geared toward the country’s rural majority. In 2001, his first year in office, Thaksin instituted a national health program that gave the poor access to medical treatment for 30 Baht, the equivalent of 75 cents in U.S. Dollars. He also began a micro-financing program that gave out one million Baht ($30,000) loans in all rural areas (http://bit.ly/aDzTY5). Villages and farms could use the credit to purchase new tools and supplies that would increase productivity and eventually add to the wealth of the region.

Not all the Thai people saw Thaksin’s economic projects as noble social policies. Critics claimed that the money sent to the countryside was only a method of buying votes. The anti-Thaksin group the People’s Alliance for Democracy, also known as the PAD or the Yellow Shirts, insisted that the micro-financing effort was simply a monetary gift that the TRT never expected to be paid back (http://bit.ly/a6QMPY). Still, Prime Minister Abhist has kept the programs intact. However, according to The Economist, his imitation of Mr. Thaksin’s ideas is written off as an insincere populist appeasement (http://bit.ly/aDzTY5).

According to the World Bank’s economic monitoring of Thailand, the percentage of people living below the poverty line in Thailand dropped from 21 to 11 percent between 2000 and 2004, a decrease from 12.7 million people in 2000 to 7.1 million in 2004. The change was most dramatic in Northeast Thailand, which was home to one half of impoverished Thai in 2004. The World Bank found that a 40 percent rise in agricultural income greatly contributed to the lower poverty levels.

While the World Bank does not credit Mr. Thaksin explicitly as a reason for the figures, the people of the Northeast region voted for the Thai Rak Thai party in four sequential elections, as noted by The Economist (http://bit.ly/aDzTY5). The North and Northeast are Red Shirt strongholds and many of the protesters in Bangkok came from these areas (http://bit.ly/99Focq). Moreover, the spring 2010 protests did not occur only in the capital city. Demonstrations and violence hit Northern cities like Khon Kaen, where embattled Red Shirts burned the provincial hall and government-run television stations (http://bit.ly/bPwtIp).

Prime Minister Thaksin fuels criticism

Not all of Prime Minister Thaksin’s policies had a positive social impact. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were particularly outspoken about his official war on drugs in 2003. According to Human Rights Watch, Mr. Thaksin and his cabinet “instructed police and local officials that persons charged with drug offenses should be considered ‘security threats’ and dealt with in a ‘ruthless’ and ‘severe’ manner.” Mr. Thaksin permitted and encouraged the use of outright force and violence (http://bit.ly/bTTTFf). Drug abusers and smugglers from neighboring Malaysia were met with hostile policies, death sentences and execution. According to Amnesty International, as a result of the methods, Mr. Thaksin effectively broke Thai law by acting against Article 243 of Thailand’s 1997 constitution, which forbids the use of force and torture to obtain confessions (http://bit.ly/ceQQcS).

Mr. Thaksin and his government turned the violent campaign into government policy. As disclosed by Human Rights Watch, the signing of Prime Minister’s Order 29/B.E. in January, 2003, immediately deemed any person with a drug offence “as a dangerous person who is threatening social and national security.” Just three months of Mr. Thaksin’s war resulted in 2,275 deaths.

“They will be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace. Who cares? They are destroying our country,” Interior Minister Wan Muhamad Nor Matha said at the time (http://bit.ly/ceQQcS).

Human Rights Watch also claims that officials would plant drugs on suspects, force confession and arrest users and former addicts for not being involved in rehabilitation programs. Furthermore, arrested users were often held in detention centers where heroin was readily available and needle sharing prevalent, although officials took no measure to educate prisoners about the spread of HIV. Notably, in a 2002 survey of Thai drug users, Human Rights Watch found that HIV was twice as common among males who had been incarcerated as those who had not.

Regime change

The drug war augmented political opponents’ vehemence against Mr. Thaksin. Former United Nations consultant Joel Schectman claimed in May 2010 that Mr. Thaksin’s decisiveness, which did help combat poverty, alienated him and Thailand from the rest of the world. During his term, Mr. Thaksin ran the country like a corporation and appointed “CEO-governors” to run provincial governments. He also may have taken national pride too far, once declaring that “the U.N. is not my father” (http://bit.ly/aYeZbb).

In January 2006, he was accused of corruption and abuse of power by the Constitutional Committee. The timing of the accusations coincided with a deal between two companies he owned. Fiduciary irregularities aside, Mr. Thaksin was investigated for insider trading when his family sold shares of his telecommunications giant Shin Corp. without paying a tax on the transaction, according to The Financial Times (http://bit.ly/aFFs6i).

Prime Minister Thaksin was overthrown in September 2006. While he attended the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the Thai Army, led by General Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, entered Bangkok and declared martial law nationwide. General Boonyaratkalin appointed an interim leader while the country prepared for elections the following year.

Although the ruling powers had enough of Prime Minister Thaksin, it seemed that the Thai people had not. The Thai Rak Thai party realigned under the name The People Power Party, and in the elections of December 2007 they again won a majority of parliamentary seats. Mr. Thaksin was in exile, but the Yellow Shirts staged months-long demonstrations and seized two airports. A year later, the Constitutional Court invalidated The People Power Party’s majority rule, claiming the party had committed voter fraud. After the decision, parliament selected Mr. Abhisit as the new prime minister (http://bit.ly/cQp1RD).

Red Shirts hit Bangkok

The impetus for the Red Shirts movement was to promote a similar regime change as the one that eliminated Mr. Thaksin. The spring 2010 protests were not a pro-Thaksin rally or a populist call to arms, but rather a demand for new elections. After their party was ousted from parliament and replaced by appointments from the King and Constitutional Committee, the Red Shirts called for a refreshed democratic process, according to The Guardian (http://bit.ly/aNYOuh). Instead of negotiating with Red Shirt leaders, Prime Minister Abhisit sent in the military to apply pressure in order to end the demonstrations.

Once the conflict turned bloody in April, international organizations attempted to persuade Thailand to avoid using force against its own people. Citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay stated, “I urge leaders to set aside pride and politics for the sake of the people of Thailand.” (http://bit.ly/cAmvJO) Ms. Pillay also pleaded with protesters to “step away from the brink” and instead focus their attention on peaceful negotiation.

The statement reiterated one from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who implored “both the protesters and the Thai authorities to do all within their power to avoid further violence and loss of life,” and to “return to dialogue in order to de-escalate the situation and resolve matters peacefully” (http://bit.ly/bU66Ne).

At one point in the conflict, Red Shirt leaders were prepared to negotiate, but were denied the opportunity to do so by Mr. Abhisit, who met the Red Shirts with the military, a violation of Principal 14 of the Basic Principals of the Use of Force and Firearms, according to Amnesty International. The principal states: “In the dispersal of violent assemblies, law enforcement officials may use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary.” (http://bit.ly/boKzK0)

On May 19, after weeks of reciprocating violence between the Red Shirts and the military, Thai forces initiated their biggest offensive to date. A gun and grenade battle in Bangkok’s shopping district raised the death toll to 88 people, according to the Associated Press (http://bit.ly/cSpj3X). The Red Shirts surrendered the next day.

“We have done our best,” stated protest leader Weng Tojirakarn. “We want to prevent further losses of our Red Shirt brothers and sisters.” (http://bit.ly/9Cj5DB)

Repairing a broken system

Although he refused to negotiate, Prime Minister Abhisit said an investigation into the events has begun (http://bit.ly/aZXAln). He has also promised a resolution to the social and political unrest. However, Mr. Abhisit has yet to say who will be conducting the investigation or what reconciliatory measures will be taken.

And so far, the Red Shirts, who have left the capital due to the mandatory curfew and threat of arrest, are not satisfied with the result of the demonstration. The farmers who barricaded themselves inside Bangkok are returning to the countryside, still feeling disenfranchised and neglected by their government.

“Red Shirt members are still all over the country in every province. Nothing has changed. It’s going to continue,” one protester told the Telegraph after the riots had ended. “I will go on fighting because in my heart I want democracy, and this government isn’t democratic.” (http://bit.ly/beDECX)

But in spite of the Red Shirts’ anger, positive steps have been made over the past fifteen years to make Thailand’s government more effective. Thailand’s constitution of 1997 was applauded by international organizations like Amnesty International. The document was the first of the country’s 17 constitutions drafted by an elected assembly and it created new rules and organizations to curb political corruption. The 1997 constitution established an independent election commission and the Constitutional Court. The constitution also created the National Human Rights Commission to find and fix abuses and inequality in the country.

In her first visit to Thailand, Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General on Human Rights Defenders Hina Jilani commented that “several
positive initiatives… help in strengthening the protection and promotion of human rights in the country” (http://bit.ly/ceQQcS).

The Asian Barometer noted that the 1997 constitution was a unique and important moment in Thailand’s democratic history, and represented “a step-level shift in the movement toward full democratic governance.”

Yet despite the progressive new statutes, many of the programs were taken to extremes, undermining the positive aspects of the constitution. According to Amnesty, the National Human Rights Commission became a vehicle for rights violations during the drug war. Article 199 of the 1997 Thai Constitution gave the Commission the power to subpoena witnesses and information in the course of its investigations, a power which Amnesty feels the commission abused (http://bit.ly/ceQQcS).

Two more constitutions have followed the 1997 version, although things have not progressed in Thailand in terms of rights and functioning democracy. Amnesty International still believes that there are “inconsistent levels of protection offered to people in Thailand by a democratically-elected government,” especially for those who are “poor, live in rural areas, are members of ethnic minorities, or are migrant workers are particularly at risk of abuse.” (http://bit.ly/ceQQcS)

If Prime Minister Abhisit hopes to become the second-ever Thai prime minister to last a full term in office, he needs to learn from the Red Shirt protests. An important demographic in his country is malcontent and as a leader he needs to address their concerns with more than an investigation. Thailand should take an inward look at its government to see how to better run a democracy for its people.

“‘Democracy’ is a somewhat sophisticated concept to be asking rural, less well-educated farmers and workers in all levels of society,” the Asian Barometer report concluded. But the people of Thailand “are quite clear about what democracy is not. It is not the substitution for democratic institutions of even benign authority.”