Since the coup of 19 September 2006 analysis of Thai politics has gone through phases. Army politics, Thaksin politics, Yellow politics, Red politics, lèse majesté politics, border politics, protest politics, electoral politics, flood politics: you all know the drill. If you crawl through the back catalogue of New Mandala you get some appreciation for how the evolving story has been dealt with at particuar moments in time. We are, to a lesser or greater extent, captured by the zeitgeist.
And a partial détente is the spirit of the current age.
In response I have noticed some new analytical fashions beginning to emerge. These are all motivated by efforts to come to grips with what could be considered Thailand’s détente — the set of understandings that now see Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra working, mostly in harmony, with those who could be her most fearsome enemies. The return of Thaksin is still at stake and appetites for further conflict appear to have diminished.
Thitinan Pongsudhirak, writing in The Wall Street Journal, argues:
As Mr. Thaksin angles for a return, members of the establishment have sent conciliatory signals. Gen. Prem warmly received Ms. Yingluck at his residence late last month. And she was recently awarded one of the highest royal decorations.
On the same general theme, Pavin Chachavalpongpun makes the point that:
Initially, it was speculated that her arrival in power could further deepen the crisis because of the conflict between her brother and his enemies. Evidently it now seems that the Yingluck government is interested in making peace with the royalists for its own political survival. This has disappointed her red-shirt supporters.
The fear is that any reconciliation between the government and the palace will likely eclipse the public call for the amendment of the lèse-majesté law for the sake of freedom of expression and the protection of basic human rights.
Depending on how you understand the situation, the disappointment of some Red Shirts may herald a fresh round of factional bickering and re-configuration. Under these conditions, will more explicitly “royalist” Red Shirts, such as Yingluck, carry the day? Or do the republican sentiments catalysed in April-May 2010 still retain their potency? Will they spark an inferno that even Yingluck and Thaksin would struggle to contain? Or, put another way, can Yingluck safely navigate between “royalist” and “radical” Reds? For her, is lèse majesté simply too hot to handle?
Later in May 2012 Prime Minister Yingluck will visit Canberra. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to ask these questions while she is here. Under the prevailing détente she could hope to continue as Prime Minister for many years to come. But even with apparent understandings between Yingluck and her notional enemies we should not assume that things will run smoothly.
Détente can be dangerous.
“…more explicitly “royalist” Red Shirts, such as Yingluck…”
“Later in May 2012 Prime Minister Yingluck will visit Canberra. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to ask these questions while she is here.”
Anyone asking such questions would be well advised to leave out the startling proposition that Yingluck is any kind of Red Shirt.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
SteveCM #1
This may be the first time you and I actually agree on anything.
I am continually amazed by the intellectuals continued insistence on portray this as some sort of ideological conflict between “Royalist” and the “Red Shirts”. This is nothing but down and dirty Thai politics between the usual suspects, with one side or the other constantly upping the stakes.
There are few, if any, anti-monarchy republicans in the UDD grassroots and even the suggestion of anything along those lines is carefully avoided. The opponents of Thaksin and his band of provincial faction leaders would be in deep trouble with their constituencies if any anti royally message is seen to be supported.
Does Nick believe that Thaksin cannot control Jatuporn and Nattawut?
Are they not now and always been nothing more than hack politicians without their own natural constituencies, fully dependent on their patrons for their political careers? Does he really think they would lead the UDD in conflict with Thaksin?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
John Smith, your argument that current events are “nothing but down and dirty Thai politics between the usual suspects” neglects the fact that in Siriraj Hospital a clock is ticking slowly downwards. The current political game is playing for higher stakes than ever before, concerning which group(s) will hold power after the succession and possibly establishing a new status quo for many decades. So as Pavin’s article stated “it is misleading to conclude that Thaksin represents the crux of the crisis. Indeed, Thailand’s political future greatly depends on the ability of the monarchy to readjust itself to the changing domestic environment.” [I would suggest that should be "monarchy-military alliance".]
It is very hard (at least for me) to tell how ideological the grass roots have become regarding the monarchy, not least of all because of LM laws that prevent open discussion of such topics. But it does seem clear to me that the motivation at the top levels for these conflicts is the pursuit of power post-succession rather than any particular ideology.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Perhaps outwardly “partial détente is the spirit of the current age” but no doubt behind the scenes politics and manoeuvering continues apace. Readers should read Steve Sciacchitano and John Cole’s piece at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NE11Ae03.html describing preparations in the military in case the spirit of détente does not last.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Why the photo of Canberra?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Steve: I have to say I’ve never thought of Yingluck as a Redshirt either, but it might be fun to see how she responds to someone framing a question for her in that way.
Nich: Do you know something the rest of us don’t. Watching Yingluck fawning over the royals and their more prominent minions is apparently viewed by many Reds as her engaging in cagey politics, but surely she has never been nor is not now a Redshirt.
John Smith: No offense intended, but were you drunk when you made that post?
For me, the real question is whether the Redshirts will continue to pursue the goals they have laid out over the past few years even though doing so will put them at odds with the government they have helped to elect and whose de facto leader is a man many of them admire.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“John Smith”:
“There are few, if any, anti-monarchy republicans in the UDD grassroots and even the suggestion of anything along those lines is carefully avoided.”
This statement is absolutely wrong.
It is actually nowadays the other way around – you will have a hard time to still find royalists especially under grassroots Red Shirts. There is a whole catalog of coded names for members of the royal family, which on grass roots level stages and in community radio stations are used with increasing openness.
It is almost impossible for UDD leaders to curb the open expression of those sentiments.
While the Red Shirts can not (yet) be classified as an anti-monarchy movement, just as a movement in which most ordinary members have, especially after April 10 and the Rajaprasong crackdown, morphed from loving the monarchy into withdrawing their loyalty, it may not take much more to transform into such. Nowadays this pressure actually comes mostly from the grassroots level, and not from the leadership of the UDD.
The death of Ah Kong was the most recent key step that has, and will continue to contribute to the ideological radicalization of the Red Shirts. Much will depend on how the state will respond to the death of Ah Kong.
Analyzing this movement along the elite conflict always was wrong, and is now more wrong than ever before. If you, for example, follow the ongoing discussion within the Red Shirts, you will find that, for example, Thaksin is heavily criticized for his statements regarding sacrifice and reconciliation on the Siam Reap stage. Yingluck’s visiting Prem is another thing that is widely criticized under Red Shirts.
Discussion within the Red Shirt movement occurs on many levels. official statements and stage speeches of main leaders are one thing, but community radio stations, grassroots organizations, facebook, etc are more reflective of what ordinary Red Shirts feel. Lacking reports from that level in the media (especially local English language media), you will have to do your own research.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“It is almost impossible for UDD leaders to curb the open expression of those (anti-monarchy) sentiments.” – Nostitz
I was under the impression that the ‘hatred’ propaganda by UDD leaders include encouraging anti-monarchy sentiments from its followers. Wasn’t that what UDD hatred leaders Arisman/Nattawut were at when they encouraged their followers to tote one-petrol-bottle each during their Bangkok march, AND, include Sririraj Hotel (where HMK was recuperating) as a target?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Nick #7
“It is actually nowadays the other way around – you will have a hard time to still find royalists especially under grassroots Red Shirts. There is a whole catalog of coded names for members of the royal family, which on grass roots level stages and in community radio stations are used with increasing openness
Vichai N #8
I was under the impression that the ‘hatred’ propaganda by UDD leaders include encouraging anti-monarchy sentiments from its followers. Wasn’t that what UDD hatred leaders Arisman/Nattawut were at when they encouraged their followers to tote one-petrol-bottle each during their Bangkok march, AND, include Sririraj Hotel (where HMK was recuperating) as a target?
There is a connection between these two statements. The UDD propaganda machine is someday going to reap what they have sown and it is not going to be pretty. Do you think there is a reason so much of the UDD publications have in the past been dedicated to the bloody end of various monarchies?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Of course the “royalist” red shirts will win the day. The movement is extremely broad with only a tiny proportion of intellectuals, former communists and farangs wearing sandals with socks on the extreme left wing who want to get rid of Section 112 and even the monarchy itself. In the middle is the vast majority of the membership who just want a better economic deal in life. They are easily bought off with unsustainable hand outs that actually worsen their lot in the long run and don’t really have strong feelings fore or against LM laws. The extreme right wing of the movement which also happens to be its head comprises people who have absolutely no real interest in any kind of social, economic or legal reform. They are interested exclusively in money and power and the best way for them to achieve their ends is to keep ordinary Thais poor, uneducated and in terror of a draconian, corrupt legal system that can be used as a tool by those in power. The influence of the monarchy is something they would like to co-opt and manipulate, rather than diminish.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Pete S (Comment 4); thanks for the referral. That’s a very important, and at a quick read, objective commentary.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0