One of the ironies of contemporary Thai politics is that a slim parliamentary mandate can confer more legitimacy than a strong parliamentary mandate. For some members of Thailand’s elite, weak politicians are a much more attractive prospect than strong ones. Strong governments are a threat and must be resisted. Weak governments have a right to govern.
Proven electoral loser Abhisit Vejjajiva fits the bill perfectly. Yesterday he managed to secure the votes of 235 MPs. It was enough to make him Prime Minister. But remember that Abhisit’s 235 is only 2 MPs more than the People Power Party secured, in its own right, in the December 2007 election.
There are 480 seats in the full Parliament. The 235 that Abhisit mobilised yesterday is less than half. This makes the by-elections scheduled for 11 January 2009 all the more interesting. If PPP/Pheua Thai can hold onto its own seats and capture some of the Chart Thai seats they will be able to narrow Abhisit’s margin even further.
A narrow parliamentary majority will be hard for Abhisit to handle, especially with 71 defectors from the former government to keep happy. But for Abhisit’s backers outside parliament, a weak government is just what the doctor ordered.
Weakness may be his best hope for longevity.
8 responses so far ↓
1 redandwhitestripes // Dec 17, 2008 at 11:59 am
“Proven electoral loser Abhisit Vejjajiva…”
Proven “loser” because his party lost one election? Is Mugabe a “proven winner” then? Is Churchill a “proven loser” for not getting elected in 1945? If Manchester United lose one match, they are “proven losers” right? Shall I go on?
Mr Walker your comment there may be factually correct but the way you use it simply exposes your own bias. Shame on you for such intellectual slopiness.
2 sackman // Dec 17, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Well, I tend to agree with the term ‘proven loser’. Democrat party is scared of elections. They lost a couple recently. They even boycotted one before. And they know that if there is one today then they would lose again.
But as Mr Walker might have hinted, the whole thing is ‘by design’. A weak loser is what some important people want in this position at this point in the game.
3 R. N. England // Dec 17, 2008 at 4:02 pm
This weakness suits the military-stacked Privy Council in its decades-old power struggle with the Parliament. The Privy Council and the Monarchy represent absolutism and the rule of personalities, quite similar to the power structure of pre-Enlightenment Europe. The Parliament, sick child though it is, represents the possibility of democracy and the rule of laws made strong by the people’s consent. It could be argued that the King in his prime prevented the Privy Council from degenerating into a Burmese-style junta, but the evidence of the last few years suggests that this is no longer the case.
The sad thing about the Thai character is that most people are stuck in the old days of the rule of personalities, and they are much less inclined to obey laws than to obey people whom they regard as superior. (The education system is largely to blame). This applies equally to the top as to the bottom of Thai society. The cream of the Thai bureaucracy, the diplomats, who regard themselves as important servants of the King, are amongst the world’s worst parking offenders in New York. Thai diplomats feel themselves to be far above New York parking policemen, but western observers see their behaviour as a measure of corruption, and have ranked them accordingly. The word “corrupt” is, of course, only a western metaphor for the social behaviour I have described more objectively, but literally it means “rotten and stinking”, far from the self-image of important bureaucrats. Of course, it’s not peculiar to Thailand. Before the Western Enlightenment this corruption was universal.
4 Srithanonchai // Dec 17, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Just curious: TRT and PPP were dissolved because they had alledgedly acquired power by unconstitutional means. Has Abhisit not acquired power by systematically supporting massive street protests, and even the closure on Thailand’s major airport? And is this not unconstitutional? Legally speaking, why are the Democrats not charged with the same offensive (but by using different means) and dissolved? And since the Democrats’ board was fully aware of what had been going on, and even came out to support it publicly, should they not be disqualified from politics for five years?
5 polo // Dec 18, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Your attempt to find an ironic truism, or the theme of an academic thesis, in Aphisit’s rise isn’t supported at all in experience.
You only have one example in modern Thai history of a leader with a strong parliamentary mandate — Thaksin. You also have only one example of a leader with strong parliamentary legitimacy who lacked (or in fact lost while in office) palace support — Thaksin. Thaksin was also of course unique in having served out his elected term before holding new elections.
One example is not very useful in setting up a pattern. All other Thai governments founded on a parliamentary majority have been coalitions, which I think by your example means a government with a weak leader. And among them longevity and legitimacy has been a mixed bag. Even Prem, royally the most legitimate leader of the Ninth Reign, dissolved the government I think four times in his eight years.
And during the post-Prem period none of the elected governments lasted an entire mandate, yet none but Chatichai (three years) were particularly opposed by the palace.
In this context then the only thing then you can say about Apisit’s goverment is it is in pretty much the same position as government with an elected PM, and most of those non-junta governments with an unelected PM, since 1946.
The only unique characteristics are that, 1), he takes power when nervousness about what happens to the monarchy is at an all-time high, and 2) there is a powerful and motivated non-military challenger (Thaksin) who remains a threat.
And while percieved royal legitimacy helps him, experience of the past for elected leaders suggests percieved royal legitimacy is as strong as a tissue — it wouldn’t survive a little tugging, much less a rainstorm.
One final point: while the Democrats have shamefully not stood on principle over the past two years, given the history of Thai coalition governments I don’t think there’s much basis for questioning his legitimacy as PM just because his party doesn’t have the mandate that TRT/PPP had.
6 Srithanonchai // Dec 18, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Thaksin (as reported in the TN, Dec. 18):
“He added that he was confident he could stage his comeback and return to serve the country once again.”
This statement might even scare Andrew!
7 HC lau // Dec 19, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Trying to find a legitimate politician or Govt in Thailand is like working for SETI (Search for Extra terrestial Intelligence) After 50 years, there is still a lot of hope, but no results.
When the law is always selectively applied, it is no longer a justice system. When a senior judge can say “occupying the airport by the PAD” is really not that bad, then all hope is lost.
8 Land of Snarls. // Dec 20, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Odd Spot: The following paragraph appears at the beginning of several unrelated articles on Bkk Post online, including one on damaged underwater cables causing internet problems for Europe:
“New prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, vowed Thursday to visit the poor northeast, a stronghold of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra, where he has struggled to win support.”
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.