In the controversial April 2006 election the Thai Rak Thai party received almost 16 million votes. Many argued that this was an illegitimate election victory, largely because of the boycott by the main opposition parties and the low voter turnout. What was the result in yesterday’s referendum? With results from about 97% of booths, the Election Commission is indicating that the “yes” vote received about 14.3 million votes. [UPDATE: The final count is 14.7 million, so I have added to .7 to the title of this post.] This represents about 56% of votes cast. [UPDATE: The final figure is 57.81%.] What will be most disappointing for the junta is that the voter turnout was relatively low, at about 55% of those registered to vote, despite its massive publicity campaign. [UPDATE: The final figure is 57.6%.] In the three elections of the Thaksin era the turnout was 70%, 72% and 65%.
So, of the 45 million Thais registered to vote, 14.7 million have endorsed the proposed constitution. It is a victory of sorts (and key no vote campaigners have accepted it), but not an impressive one. The international reaction will be interesting to watch.
[For detailed coverage and discussion see Bangkok Pundit who provides the figures on previous voter turnout quoted above.]
14 responses so far ↓
1 Historicus // Aug 20, 2007 at 11:45 am
The results are going to scare the pants of the conservatives, the military leadership and the palace. Get ready for even more propaganda and, I fear, more repression and dirty tricks. The message that the troglodytes will draw from this result is that they need to be blunter in getting what they want. Sonthi B. said as much today.
2 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Aug 20, 2007 at 3:07 pm
All this election has accomplished is statistically proven that Thailand is currently engaged in a “cold” civil war between the North/Northeast and the Central/South.
All that’s left now is to choose the fighting anthems of both sides, every great civil war has had them: the English Civil War had When the King Enjoys His Own Again for one side and Lili Burlero for the other. For the American Civil War, we, of course, have The Battle Hymn of the Republic and Dixie.
So any suggestions for songs representative of the sides in this conflict, my fellow New Mandalaians?
3 ThaiBloke // Aug 20, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Not exactly a resounding yes was it. And the old TRT stronghold has made its feeling very clear.
The next government is going to have to get the development bandwagon running hard in the North East to stop trouble up here I think. Looking around my home town, business is down, various shops closing, and yet the local govt is spending money on bratoo meung! Can’t they find something more beneficial to spend the money on in the countryside?
The country has never been so split I fear.
4 serf // Aug 20, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Thailand’s revolution of sorts and not an even half-decent politician in sight. Just more of the same boring old pro-monarchist Thaksinite & military fascist neanderthals. Both have blood on their hands. Nothing here worth achieving martyrdom for, for us plebs. Anyone who wants to achieve something real for themselves and their family would be better off taking their skills to live in another country where they will be appreciated – whether they be laborers, skilled workers or intellectuals. Who would really want to spend the rest of their lives subsidizing scum like Thaksin, Samak, the two Sonthis and the CP.
5 nganadeeleg // Aug 20, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Great post serf.
Apart from the heading offshore aspect, I agree entirely (unusual for me).
That’s why I’ve been banging on for months about the electorate having to be more discerning.
The only way things can get any better is if the electorate keep turfing out (rejecting) politicians until finally they get the idea that they need to change (improve).
I had no problems with giving Thaksin a go, but he should have been rejected once his true colors were apparent.
I know it’s more complex when there are vested interests, no good alternatives, and obvious dangers, but at least it would be a start.
That’s also why I am really pissed off at TRT for rolling over to Thaksin instead of moderating his worst behaviors.
(look where it has got them !)
6 Sidh S. // Aug 21, 2007 at 5:35 pm
More than anything else, maybe the ‘yes’ vote is a pragmatic Thai vote – less a support for the junta or a no against Thaksin. It’s a ‘let’s get on with life’, apolitical vote. Contrary to how many commentators view this refendum that there is ‘no choice’ – the choice may be obvious for most Thais a (hopeful) return to normalcy Vs. extended political uncertainties.
Students of Thailand and Thai society would know better that idealism isn’t part of mainstream Thai cultural practice, ruled by pragmatism and compromise. This naturally disappoints many Western observers and Western-trained Thais. Ofcourse, there are aspirations to become ‘modernized’ and truly ‘democratic’ but there seem to be no hurry to get there (for most see it as impractical?). The 1997 ‘People’s Constitution’ was an ideal blueprint for both – but Mr.Thaksin organized an ‘oligarchs coup’ that focused on modernization but neglected democracy/rule of law/human rights…
In this context, maybe the ‘no’ vote is simpler to explain especially its predominance in North and Northeastern provinces. Again, I will argue even that is a practical vote, not necessarily merely an affirmation for Thaksin’s patronage, but for formal policies that are directly responsive to their needs. Practical politicians, of any party, will know what to do for the upcoming election – and what to do when they are government…
I am painting a rosy picture towards ‘normalcy’ – it is what I am speculating is in the mind of Thai voters on Sunday. This, ofcourse, can easily disrupted by ambitious generals and Mr.Thaksin protecting his every baht of wealth…
7 Republican // Aug 23, 2007 at 1:36 am
Half the country remains under martial law, the government is controlled by a royalist dictatorship, the mass Thai Rak Thai party has just been destroyed, its leader exiled and his assets seized, the mass media is totally controlled by the regime, the military and bureaucracy have thrown hundreds of millions of baht into a Yes campaign, and the rubber-stamp legislature passes a bill imposing a ten-year prison sentence on those found guilty of “influencing or persuading” the way people make their choice in the referendum – and yet 42% of the electorate still vote “No”.
Of course, the “No” vote is a vote for Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai.
Given the royalists’ repeated public denunciations of Thaksin as an enemy of the throne, if I was the king – not to mention all the interest groups that live off the monarchy – I would be very worried.
8 Bangkok Pundit // Aug 23, 2007 at 8:37 am
Republican: With respect, I disagree. I know some “no vote” people and they certainly didn’t like Thaksin, they just hate the CNS. I also know some Thaksin supporters who abstained and voted yes.
9 Bangkok Pundit // Aug 23, 2007 at 8:41 am
Ngandeeleg: But if there are no good alternatives, who to choose? The answer nobody doesn’t really cut it. It is easy to say they are all bad, but someone has to be the leader.
10 nganadeeleg // Aug 23, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Pundit: “…who to choose?”
Pundit: The answer is to keep trying new ones (instead of rewarding or recycling the same old corrupt ones)
Even give some youngbloods a go – if they don’t perform, they can always be voted out later!
11 Republican // Aug 24, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Reply to Bangkok Pundit: you have a fantastic blogsite, but on this point I’m afraid we may have to agree to disagree.
No doubt in a referendum in which 25 million people have cast their ballots there will be numerous reasons for voting yes, no, informal or staying away. But what I don’t quite understand is why it appears (at least from your short comment) hard for you to accept that some people might actually WANT to vote for Thaksin given the chance. His party had three very big election victories; he was hugely popular primarily due to the appeal of his grass-roots policies; Thailand’s economy recovered and grew relatively rapidly under Thai Rak Thai’s management; “Thaksinomics” received much praise internationally; and Thaksin himself is now the only Thai (Asian?) to have managed to buy an English Premier League football team and lure the former team manager of the English national team as his manager (just consider what that means to the Thai voter: Sven-Goran Eriksson, former manager of England, now works for Thaksin). Not only that, but the former Thai Rak Thai party ran a prominent no-vote campaign. The areas where the no-vote was highest were Thai Rak Thai territory. Thai Rak Thai = Thaksin. QED?
I hope I haven’t misrepresented you, but you seem to have fallen for the fallacy which Somsak Jeamthirasakul calls the สองไม่เอา position: the rejection of both the royalist-military dictatorship and the rejection of Thaksin. Strategically it is a fallacy, because the only way to defeat the dictatorship and the interests that support it – primarily the king – is through a movement based on the legitimacy of the democratic mandate of the electorate. Before September 19 this electorate was largely controlled by Thai Rak Thai, and even after almost a year of dictatorship the party is still very popular. In terms of one’s own political stance you ought to realize an inconvenient truth here, that is that a rejection of Thaksin amounts to a rejection of the democratic wishes of the majority of the Thai people – under the conditions of a truly free and fair election without interference from the “network”. At this moment in Thailand’s political development a rejection of Thaksin is in effect a vote for network monarchy.
As I say, I hope I have not misinterpreted your position; if so, I will look forward to further debate.
12 nganadeeleg // Aug 25, 2007 at 10:24 am
“At this moment in Thailand’s political development a rejection of Thaksin is in effect a vote for network monarchy.”
Pundit can answer for himself (if he so desires).
IMO neither choice is wholly acceptable, particularly in the long run.
Given that choice, at this moment in Thailand’s political development, I would choose a monarchy network over a Thaksin network because I think the latter has less of a conscience and is therefore much more dangerous.
13 Nine good men and true // Oct 23, 2007 at 10:11 am
[...] though the NCCC was selected by the coup makers, Medhi argued that their mandate derives from the electorate’s endorsement of the new constitution. He signalled that the NCCC will be active in pursuing corruption and [...]
14 Thailand’s army leaders not better than Burma’s « Rule of Lords // Apr 23, 2008 at 11:27 am
[...] takeover is supposedly popular — a claim made repeatedly after September 2006 that has since been proven false — the window of opportunity will not remain open for long. Its leaders must calculate and [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.