Opinion - News Analysis   

Democracy and a tale of two juntas

— PHOTOs: AFP, AP

Differing approaches: Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi (below) and new Thailand Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej.

The announcement of a civilised exit by the military coup-masters in Thailand on Thursday follows the assumption of office by a coalition formed on the basis of a “democracy-restoring” poll. No less important is the test of how far this turn of events in Thailand will encourage the democracy campaigners in neighbouring Myanmar. However, the contrast between Thailand, now free of a coup regime, and military-ruled Myanmar is traceable to the extent of their independent exposure to globalisation and also their differing political cultures.

Both are members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean); but it was Myanmar, that found the going tough at the group’s summit in Singapore last November. Thailand’s military rulers had by then pledged to restore elective democracy; and Myanmar’s junta, in contrast, was still seeking new political space within the framework of the recent problem-solving intervention by the United Nations.

Significantly, Thailand, not always at ease with the United States as a long-time ally, has, in fact, known several periods of military rule as defining events and not just political interludes. Such contemporary history does give rise to serious scepticism now about the durability of this latest restoration of elective democracy. However, there is some reassuring news for those wishing to see a stable and liberal democratic order in Thailand. Not to be dismissed lightly in this context is the parting statement by the Council for National Security (CNS), the Thai junta which formally dissolved itself on February 7. CNS chairman Chalit Pukbhasuk emphasised that his country, if it were to lurch back to non-democratic politics in the future, would be “pressured like our neighbour [Myanmar],” which, in his view, was now being pushed by the larger international community.

In Myanmar, where the junta revels in insulating itself, democracy campaigners, long inspired by Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, have often discovered that their external sympathisers do not succeed in advancing their cause. The external focus on Thailand, in comparison, has sometimes made a positive difference to the pro-democracy struggle there. The reason has much to do with the greater importance of Thailand to big powers.

A relevant geopolitical reality is that Thailand straddles a frontline zone of strategic interest to major powers, while Myanmar finds itself in a relative rear zone. Yet China and increasingly India, too, have seen much value in the strategic location of Myanmar, especially after its military rulers began, in recent years, showcasing its energy resources. It is in this context that the U.N. is increasingly looking towards India and China to help catalyse a pro-democracy breakthrough in Myanmar.

U. Nyan Win, spokesman of Ms Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, told this correspondent that she wanted the junta to hold “time-bound” talks with her in a new ambience of “no prior conditions” from both sides. For this, Ms Suu Kyi, for long under house arrest, would like to “meet the decision-maker, the policy-maker” at the “highest” level.

The CNS is now willing to concede that the objectives it set out, after overthrowing Thailand’s twice-elected leader Thaksin Shinawatra in September 2006, have not been fulfilled. These goals were designed to purge Thailand of Mr. Thaksin and his policies of “economic globalisation” in a climate of his own “political authoritarianism.” In this perspective, the stated agenda of the CNS included such undefined aspects as the protection of “national interest” within Asean and elsewhere, and the “de-Thaksinisation” of politics through drives against corruption, nepotism, and human rights abuses.

The most glaring instance of “de-Thaksinisation” was the verdict by the CNS-installed constitutional court that the political domain would remain out of bounds for the deposed leader for five years. Mr. Thaksin, initially a corporate leader, had set up the Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT), which served him well in his leap to power. And, the TRT was disbanded on a judicial order under the overall auspices of the CNS.

In its political overdrive to purge Thailand of Mr. Thaksin’s real and imaginary influences, the CNS discounted his pro-poor image and banked heavily on the “goodwill” of a sizeable section of the elite opposed to him. However, it did not take long for the pro-democracy groups, which included Mr. Thaksin’s loyalists, to protest at every opportunity, even as the CNS basked in the sunshine of a “good coup” as some powerful opponents of the deposed leader portrayed it.

The CNS, not averse to sustaining itself in power for as long as possible, was also not unaware of the approaching day of democratic reckoning. However, Sonthi Boonyaratglin, who as Army Chief toppled Mr. Thaksin, and Surayud Chulanont, a former general whom the CNS appointed as Prime Minister, gambled on holding a general election. It was, in fact, a Hobson’s choice, as Thailand was sliding back on economic and other fronts since the anti-Thaksin coup. Several factors, including the CNS’ failures to unveil globalisation-dictated economic policies in the specific Thai context and to pin down Mr. Thaksin on any charges, accounted for the poll that took place last December.

Thereafter, the newly-formed and pro-Thaksin People’s Power Party (PPP) emerged as the front-runner in the poll that produced no unassailable majority for any group in the new House, now inaugurated a few days ago. Throughout the poll campaign, the PPP made no secret of its affiliation to Mr. Thaksin, in self-imposed exile. Yet the CNS, after having sought every trick in the political book to thwart the PPP from forming a coalition government with the help of five other new and anti-coup parties, realised that the grand game of a “good coup” was up.

With PPP leader Samak Sundaravej assuming office as Prime Minister on February 6 and naming a Cabinet with no military links even in respect of the defence portfolio, Mr. Thaksin is looking forward to returning to Thailand as the prodigal patron of democracy. However, Mr. Samak has chosen to keep open the timing of Mr. Thaksin’s political rehabilitation. The question is how long will the deposed politician remain a leader-in-waiting. Will the issue be decided by Thailand’s image as a globalised country, given Mr. Thaksin’s past policies of Western-style globalisation, or by new political shenanigans in Bangkok?

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Alarm bells for legislators
Collective punishment flops
The urgency of concluding the nuclear deal
Combating bird flu in Asia
Democracy and a tale of two juntas
Corrections and clarifications
Kidney racket
Renewed socialism
Divisive politics
Marriageable age
`Bearing' the brunt
On Karanjia

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu