Thailand's unfolding political tragedy

Now that the Thai Constitutional Court has nullified the Feb 2 elections, Thailand is beginning to resemble a train wreck.

The decision to void the election is part of a broader orchestrated effort by Thailand's opposition and watchdog agencies to depose the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and limit the influence of her brother, exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The conflict between those who advocate electoral democracy - even at the cost of corruption - and those who are bent on unelected rule based on what they see as virtuous moral authority has deepened. Things are likely to get much worse before they get better.

The latest crisis began with the Yingluck government's amnesty Bill last October. The proposed legislation was aimed at exonerating Thaksin, who is under a two-year conviction for corruption. His controversial rule from 2001 until a military coup ousted him in 2006 yielded a mixed legacy. Pro-establishment supporters regard him as a corrupt usurper who manipulated the electoral system to line his own pockets. Rural folk, on the other hand, embraced his populist platform that addressed their long-neglected grievances.

The amnesty gambit broke an uneasy truce after Ms Yingluck had gone out of her way to appease the military, the privy council and other establishment centres of power. But the amnesty debacle led to the re-establishment of the anti-Thaksin coalition, which had been scattered and demoralised as a result of electoral losses in recent years and Ms Yingluck's apparent consolidation of power after winning the July 2011 election.

The anti-Thaksin coalition gained traction through massive protests in the capital, led this time by veteran politician Suthep Thaugsuban of the opposition Democrat Party under the banner of the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC).

When Ms Yingluck responded by calling for fresh elections, thus reducing her own status to that of a caretaker prime minister, the Democrat Party boycotted the election. The PDRC also obstructed some of the polling in Bangkok. The election commission, seen as part of the anti-Thaksin coalition, was also unenthusiastic.

The election was discredited without the participation of the opposition, and was unable to provide a new mandate for the government. The PDRC then ramped up its street-based pressure for the Caretaker Prime Minister to resign. So far, Ms Yingluck has refused. The protesters want to bring about a political vacuum into which an appointed government can be installed to enact reforms that they say are needed to extirpate Thaksin's perceived corrupt influence on Thai politics.

Meanwhile, various watchdog agencies have been making moves designed to put an end to the Yingluck government.

Apart from the election nullification, the National Anti-Corruption Commission is considering charging Ms Yingluck for malfeasance over her government's rice-pledging scheme. Government MPs and some senators have also been charged with violating the Constitution by trying to make the Senate fully elected.

To the government's opponents, the end justifies the means, including blocking off key areas of downtown Bangkok. From the outset, the current movement under the PDRC was and remains a civilian coup by Thailand's electoral minority. They do not deny democracy, but they want to tailor it, keeping it away from what they see as manipulation and corruption by Thaksin. The other side insists on electoral democracy at all costs, even if it benefits the Thaksin regime and its proxies, such as Ms Yingluck. For this side, electoral democracy is fair and just, enabling upcountry voices to be heard and catered to after decades of neglect. They want problems fixed within the political system, not imposed from outside by the military, judiciary or other partisan agencies.

They are not all fond of Thaksin. They are not ignorant of the scourge of corruption either. But their preference is to have democracy first and fix everything that needs fixing thereafter. They are the electoral majority who campaigned for the Feb 2 polls, turning out in huge numbers in the latest and prior elections.

Lurking behind and within these two broad social movements are the Thaksin camp and its foes. Thaksin benefits from electoral democracy because he has won time and again. His opponents benefit from undermining electoral rule and launching anti-corruption crusades against the pro-Thaksin governments to keep him away from Thailand.

It is true that Thaksin has corruption problems and that Ms Yingluck does his bidding. But the situation is shaping up as the third time an elected government will be dislodged by power plays behind the scenes.

The first was a military coup in September 2006. It elicited little resistance because allegations regarding Thaksin's corruption held up in the eyes of most. But when the new military-inspired Constitution in 2007 introduced elections, most of the electorate opted for another Thaksin party.

The newly formed government was then rocked by pro-opposition yellow-shirt protesters that culminated with the occupation of Bangkok's main airport. It was duly deposed by a judicial coup by way of a Constitutional Court decision dissolving the ruling party in December 2008.

The pro-Thaksin red shirts then took to the streets in protest, but were suppressed by the military in 2009 and 2010 until they had their say in Pheu Thai's electoral victory in July 2011.

Thailand is going through a recurrent pattern. The pending ouster of Ms Yingluck is likely to stir up radicalised red-shirt sentiments and bring them back into the streets. Unless a new election is organised in which the Democrat Party runs, Thailand will likely end up with an unelected government. Its legitimacy will be challenged by the international community, and its tenure will be tested by those who demand the right to vote. When the dust clears - and it could take several years - the Thais will have to realise that the starting point of any democracy is the will of the majority. Anything less than that is unlikely to be sustainable.

The writer teaches international political economy and directs the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Political Science in Bangkok.

Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.