With the assistance of a military coup, two party dissolutions, a new constitution, an activist judiciary, royal backing, an ultra-nationalist crisis, six months of escalating street provocation, military insubordination, and an economically disastrous airport shutdown, the Democrat Party now seems to be within striking distance of forming Thailand’s next government.
Good luck to them.
Their path to government has been anything but honourable, but the ultimate decision will be made by parliament. If the Democrat Party can muster the numbers in parliament, they have a right to form government. Those who have defected from the government side will have to face their respective electorates eventually and the voters will be able to make a judgement about their motives and their actions (and any incentives they may have received).
Up until then the Pheua Thai/UDD forces would do well to play the part of a suitably outraged, vigorous and constructive opposition. Some well attended rallies of red shirts would provide a suitable forum for the expression of anger at the Democrat Party’s opportunistic path to government. If the rallies are orderly then the Pheua Thai backers can maintain the hold they have on the high moral ground that has been so comprehensively abandoned by the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD).
The strategists in Pheua Thai probably fancy their chances against the Democrats in a general election. Given the likely fragility of a Democrat majority, and the fluidity of party allegiances, an electoral contest may well come sooner rather than later.
But all bets will be off if the Democrats move down the “new politics” path laid down by the PAD. Any attempt to move towards an appointed, rather than elected, parliament, will surely be vigorously resisted by parliamentary and non-parliamentary means. Let’s see if the Democrats can live up to their name.
17 responses so far ↓
1 David Brown // Dec 9, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I am encouraged that the formation of the government now is still
working within the democratic rules… if the democrats succeed, the
government will be composed of all elected MPs….
(I dont like all the money flowing but its still elected MPs that are
negotiating with each other… even with nefarious help from the
military and other influences, just like the PPP talking to Thaksin only more dangerous… )
as you say in the post, what we need to watch for is any attempt within the constitution or outside it to introduce any more non-elected people as MPs or into the government
and the by-elections in january must go ahead… the more elections with all people voting is key to continuing the democratic life of Thailand!
2 polo // Dec 9, 2008 at 6:29 pm
We need to begin calling this whole thing for what it is: a silent coup. In 1980 forces behind Prem, from around him and above him, stoked nervousness and instability and finally pushed the members of Parliament to withdraw support for PM Gen Kriengsak. When elected MP Kukrit Pramoj saw a chance to succeed Kriengsak, the same forces intervened to make sure he stood aside and let Prem be “chosen” by the Parliament as PM. This was henceforth labelled the Silent Coup.
What do we have here, now? For two years PAD supported and encouraged by the same forces that brought Prem to power have been able to force out three PMs chosen in the parliament. Finally after the airports siege, a critical mass of TRT-PPP politicians had been barred from politics, and under heavy pressure much of what’s left of the coalition pull out and go to the other side because they were promised sweet cabinet positions. And a new PM acceptable to the military and palace takes power.
This was all done behind the scenes, not as simply as a process of normal political negotiations, but something dictated from above. There is no relationship to the people’s will or voters’ choice.
So shouldn’t we already be calling this The Second Silent Coup and counting it in the long shameful list of Thailand’s extrajudicial and extraconstitutional political changes dictated by the military and the highest institution?
3 Somsak Jemateerasakul // Dec 9, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Totally agree with K.Polo.
While I think I understand K.Andrew’s wish to maintain the legitimacy of the parliament to choose PM, I strongly think he goes too far in saying “If the Democrat Party can muster the numbers in parliament, they have a right to form government. ” (Hence the title of the post is misleading: it’s anything but ‘parliarmentary’)
Given the path to power of the Dem that K.Andrew very well describes (and further emphasized by K.Polo), I don’t think they have any ‘right’ here. This is another military-royalist coup (or, part of the same ‘ongoing coup’ since 2006), done under the guise of ‘legality’. It’s very much the feature of the current situations; the so-called “Tulakanphiwat” has of course been the most obvious component.
(One could say the Dem have the ‘right’ as much as the current Constitution has been ‘approved’ by a plebiscite, i.e. both are the product blackmail politics.)
4 Glenn // Dec 9, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Not sure I agree with this “will of the voters” argument. If PPP had managed an absolute majority I would agree. But they didn’t. So there’s a coalition. The parties are and should be free to join together however is best for them to form a government.
Now, as you say, PPP has been opposed by some big forces beyond its control. At this point Thailand can’t keep going on doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. So I think it makes sense that the parties are joining together to attempt to bring some calm. I am sure a good deal of horse trading was also done.
For sure this will be a shaky coalition that will be difficult to steer with so many different parties. It’s not likely it will last very long.
5 fallingangels // Dec 10, 2008 at 3:14 am
To support Khun Polo and Ajarn Somsak’s posts
The silent coup or military backup this time is very simply to figure out, I think. Well, for me, in Prem’s era they even have more intelligence to plan their silent coup.
In this era (Anupong’s era), he and his ‘clan’ just simply said that the military are ready to go out of their fence to stop ‘the red shirts’ if they protest ‘Democrat party’, but not a single sign when it came to PAD. … Can you really call it ‘parliamentary’?
With Respect
6 Somsak Jemateerasakul // Dec 10, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Bangkok Post has a very interesting report of how a ’secret plan’ called ‘Operation 20 October’ had been hatched by Suthep since late October to get Nevin and Banharn to switch side. See:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/topstories.php?id=135279
See also my brief comment at (sorry, in Thai only)
http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?&showtopic=17988
7 Srithanonchai // Dec 10, 2008 at 7:49 pm
In fact, in order to understand this very long change of government from Thaksin to the Democrats, one might want to start with Chirmsak Pinthong’s “Ru than Thaksin” books, the first of which appeared, if I am not mistaken, in April 2004. Even earlier, Chirmsak had written a small book about himself, in which he stated that he did not trust Thaksin, because he had not seen him anywhere in politics during the momentous events of 1973, 1976, and 1992. Instead, Thaksin had lobbied people involved in the political system to further his personal business interests. Chermsak and phuak had gained substantial hope by misinterpreting Abhirak’s win in the Bangkok governor election at the end of 2004, only to fall back into a desperate mood after their fellow countrymen decidedly rejected their view of Thaksin in the election of February 2005. But they did not give up. Chermsak had joined Sondhi at Lumpini Park already, and later became one of his formost ideologues. Now, he and his friends can celebrate their long-faught “victory.” That is, it has taken these forces about 4 1/2 years to achieve their goal of toppling the “Thaksin system.”
Today, I listened to the taxi drivers’ community radion station on Vibhavadee road. A caller remarked that, from now on, we will have a “nominee government of the PAD.”
8 Terry // Dec 10, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Perhaps “subtle coup” is apt in this case. It seems these days the green party only have to drop the word in the right place to achieve the same effect as tanks on the street.
Still, they are not over the line yet.
9 Keyman // Dec 11, 2008 at 11:56 am
I think we’re all missing the main point here. Yes, all of this is distasteful (or dishonourable) to say the very least, and could be easily be characterized as a “coup by other means.” However, should we not credit those who are orchestrating this silent/judicial/elite-conspiracy coup for recognizing the need to at least pay lip service to democratic norms? Surely the selection of Parliamentary tactics is preferable to an outright military takeover with tanks in the streets again. Does this not represent a modicum of progress? This would seem to be a necessary first step if we hope to eventually look forward to a time when we will see political solutions with even less interference as the various invisible and visible hands start to see the merit of a separation of powers.
10 Frank G Anderson // Dec 12, 2008 at 1:53 am
Parliamentary records -
Does anyone know of any online voter resource in Thailand similar in any fashion to that in the US, et. al where senators and MPs, etc., are indicated with full bio information and voting records?
Thanks.
Frank
11 R. N. England // Dec 12, 2008 at 12:43 pm
The Newin group’s reversal of alliances is a betrayal of Thaksin, but it does not seem at this stage to be a betrayal of the interests of the little people of rural Thailand. The Newin group appear to have extracted a high price from the Democrats, who seem to have promised them that the old TRT policies that brought advancement to rural Thailand will remain in place. The old hierarchy were prepared to tear the country apart in a squabble over personalities, but perhaps they will accept the policies that democracy has brought. If the little people really have won, I hope they will prefer not to continue the dispute over personalities, and if necessary, allow their hero to fade into history.
12 Frank G Anderson // Dec 12, 2008 at 1:09 pm
It seems as is one has indeed spent time with the rural people of Thailand, one would have known Newin nor Thaksin ever had their interests at heart. As to the little people analogy, is that an unintentional condescension? From my personal experience living in rural Buriram (Newin’s turf), some years ago and comparing to now, the little people have been kept little by the likes of Newin.
13 R. N. England // Dec 13, 2008 at 1:21 pm
When the likes of Newin and Thaksin do good things, it is even more obvious than usual that credit should go to the environment in which they operate, rather than to the individuals. Democratic institutions tend to be responsible for the good things power-hungry people do, and natural human frailty and the more sordid aspects of their backgrounds, for the bad. A world view dominated by heroes and villains (like that of the yellows and the reds) is a childish one.
14 Frank G Anderson // Dec 13, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I dunno… ascribing motives carte blanche tends of overlook other aspects or motivations. Men like Newin and Thaksin, for example, ARE just men and are bound to do good things from time to time whether they intend to or not. As well, they may be doing them for self-serving reasons or because they are the right thing to do. As to the latter, this is a tough call. Over the four decades of my experience with politicians, Thai or otherwise, their ability and/or willingness to do good rather than not depends generally on what it does for them and their supporters, but more so for them as they need to be stable to help their cause.
So, in short, whenever those two in particular do something good per se, I have deep reservations about their motives.
15 David Brown // Dec 21, 2008 at 1:19 am
RN England… I agree
full participatory democracy has built in accountabilty
anyone wanting to be elected has to commit something to get the electors to vote for them, associate with a party with a charismatic, effective leader, time, energy, money, whatever
after election the MPs are faced with decisions on how they will spend their maximum term in office,
will they please themselves and not expect to be reelected or will they do something for their electors and work to get reelected?
in any case, in a democracy it is rare for one party to be in power for more than say two terms
then the member has to decide whether to keep working either outside or in opposition hoping to be elected and for his party to be in power next time
the situation is entirely different for nominated members, they just need to suck up to the selection panel or its controller otherwise they are not really accountable to anyone, they can behave like the infamous Rosana and her colleagues, supporting the PAD and other unproductive activities without needing to care about whether the country is going down the drain
I wonder if Sondhi Lim feels he has achieved anything?
How much money has he stacked away?
How many peoples lives has he destroyed?
What other objectives does he still want to pursue?
16 Another David // Dec 21, 2008 at 4:38 pm
David Brown, it is not very often I agree with what you have to say.
But, I was almost totally with you ,regarding your comments on democracy and accountability, until the last couple of sentences.
I agree that one should ask questions about what Sondhi, might have achieved, and for what ends.
However, to be balanced (as the rest of your piece is – to me), you should also ask the same questions of Thaksin.
Another David
17 David Brown // Dec 23, 2008 at 12:42 am
hi Another David
thanks for your correction about Rosana
its true she was elected… interesting, her NGO type colleagues tried to get themselves accepted as nominated senators but none of them were selected
meanwhile I discovered that she was originally sponsored in her work in holistic health (coals to newcastle?) by the Canadian Friends Service Committee… who are Qakers (pacifists) … and is celebrated in their magazine for being elected into the Thai senate
As I believe Rosana can be classed as “one of those from the Peoples’ Movement that was poisoned by the P.A.D. leadership which dragged too many people into supporting the “yellow-ribbon” coup”
I have sent an email to the Qaker organisation asking them if they are aware of what their reputation may be associated?
so, thanks for a bit more information on who and what is happening here
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.