Over the past week, observers of politics in Thailand have been treated to yet another public display of anti-government street protests that have sought to paralyze the elected administration.
It is unfortunately a familiar sight to those well acquainted with Thailand, where there is a longstanding competition for power between the poorer, majority population living in rural areas and a landed minority elite in Bangkok. Not far beneath the surface of this misleading dichotomy is a tragic history of repression —the story of a nominally democratic nation that has struggled to put the military under true civilian control following no fewer than four violent massacres in the past 40 years.
The last time I was involved with mass demonstrations in Bangkok in 2010, the protesters were wearing different colored t-shirts, but the fundamental issues remained the same. I had been sent there to serve as international counsel to the Red Shirts, who were facing a wide variety of violations to their human rights. They were protesting for their basic right to suffrage and against the self-appointed Democrat Party, whose friends in the court system had repeatedly banned popular parties, disqualified winning candidates and subverted democracy according to their own designs for the nation.
Back then, the unelected leadership ordered the military to fire upon the protesters, killing more than 90 innocent civilians. Now, some of these same former government officials, such as Suthep Thaugsuban — who once said that Red Shirt protesters had died because they “ran into the sniper’s bullets” — have taken to the streets to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, rather than trying their luck at the ballot box.
What has transpired in Bangkok in recent weeks deserves much scrutiny, and only a serious look at what the unrest says about the “deep state” that is operating behind the scenes.
The “deep state,” which refers to entrenched networks of power within the official apparatus over which civilian authorities have no real control, is a useful concept to analyze the complex political events presently taking place in Thailand. Behind the current spate of protests, there is coordination at work by the deep state to substitute the democratic process to achieve an outcome suitable to the interests of a minority.
The problem begins with the fact that, for decades, Thailand’s democracy was not representative in the truest sense of the word, but rather an exclusionary club.
When the popular leader Thaksin Shinawatra emerged in 2001, he found success in uniting a number of democratic forces that were not aligned to the Thai Army, the traditional “deep state” source of influence. There is little mystery why Thaksin remains popular. Before being ousted by a military coup in 2006, he had delivered massive economic growth, widespread improvements in healthcare for Thailand’s poorest citizens and a new sense of enfranchisement and citizenship to millions. Far from being a divisive force, he has managed to put together a national coalition of entrepreneurs and ordinary Thai citizens, which has resulted in five clear election victories over the past twelve years.
However, the Democrat Party — which has repeatedly failed to achieve electoral success — is composed of members with longstanding connections to the Army, Privy Council, Constitutional Court and other political actors including the so-called National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is suspected to be planning an attempted dissolution of the ruling party. In effect these interests represent the key actors and agencies that make up Thailand’s “deep state.”
For Suthep to resign and lead street demonstrations means that these deep state actors are actively in motion. As in any good ballet or theatrical production, we cannot see the various players at work, but their power to coordinate the overthrow of a democratically elected government is enhanced by a willing naïveté of diplomats and foreign correspondents, who have traditionally failed to look beneath the surface whilst failing to analyze the entrenched interests.
There is something deeply problematic about the coordinated behavior of elites who are committed to overturning a popular mandate, and yet, the dominant narrative in many Western publications has been supportive of these unnecessary calls for overthrow. It seems that for the deep state, there is no price too high. The damage that a military coup or unconstitutional transfer of power would cause to Thailand’s international image, not to mention the dangerous instability it would unleash among those whose votes would effectively be stolen, is seen as an acceptable cost to pay in order to avoid a regular democratic election.
However, there seems to be little awareness of this slow-motion seizure of power. Instead, foreign correspondents dutifully mimic the talking points of the elites, focusing on unsubstantiated corruption allegations against the ruling party rather than questioning the ongoing disassembly of a hugely important Asian democracy.
Opponents and critics of the Yingluck Shinawatra government have a right to protest; they have a right to freedom of expression and free assembly (though occupying government ministries is unlawful). But when it comes to making a change in leadership, it is in Thailand’s interest that change come through the ballot box rather than the end of a rifle or a fishy legal decision.
In this elaborate dance between pro-government and anti-government protests, red and yellow, democrats vs. “Democrats,” many people have lost sight of the most essential aspect of basic human dignity at play. The most powerful elements in Thai society, such as the untouchable Privy Council, have repeatedly demanded that Thais forget the past; that they forget the butchering of protesters in 1973, 1976, 1992 and 2010; forget that no one was ever punished; and forget the repeated removal of elected leaders and banning of MPs and parties.
Thailand is strong enough and mature enough to assume the responsibilities of democracy, but the deep state — with its reliance on coups, massacres and the suspension of the rule of law — seeks to hold the embattled country back. Western observers should not encourage them.
Robert Amsterdam