Of Rights Lost and Democracy to Come.
In early May of this year the Thai
Constitutional Court dismissed Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for a single
transfer of office that allowed Thaksin Shinawatra’s former brother in law to
become the nation’s top cop. Since the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin from
office, Yingluck’s dismissal was the third time courts had removed from office pro-Thaksin prime ministers. Two weeks later the
self-proclaimed National Council for Peace and Order seized power, claiming that
rival political camps were on the brink of political violence and it was time
to restore national happiness.
Then followed the “Big Shift” as the junta
purged officials and moved their people into place. From those outraged at
Thaksin and Yingluck’s political nepotism no sound was heard against the
military’s self-regarding and non-transparent appointments.
The junta cemented its power by a
series of extra-ordinary decrees including those enabling the forcible
detention (for the purposes of attitude adjustment) of hundreds of politicians,
activists, academics and potential dissidents. And from those who had taken to
the streets citing the liberal rights of the minority (the protestors) in the
face of the tyranny of the majority (the Yingluck government) no opposition was
raised against arbitrary detention.
The silence is symptomatic of authoritarian
liberals’ belief that Thailand is now in abnormal times and requires drastic
measures. And so it still remains, as each day brings new abnormalities under
coup law and the country drifts towards an
unimaginable future.
Inevitably, whispers of physical human rights
abuse leaked from some detainees, but none so spectacularly as that of red
shirt activist Kritsuda
Khunasem, who endured three weeks of detention
and emerged “more happy than I can say”, only to seek refuge in Europe with claims of torture. More of such reports can be expected, for a
coup licenses such abuse. Until the rule of law is established, the onus should
be on the alleged guilty party in such cases to prove that it did not engage in
torture, since that party acts without due
process and transparency.
More allegations of coercion, harm and
torture are likely to emerge, despite the conditional release of some detainees
with statements that they were well-treated and would work with the military
for reconciliation. Images in the Thai
press of forced meetings between yellow and red-shirt activists underline the
grim-faced submission to the coup. That the military believed its Return Happiness
and reconciliation campaigns would work is not farcical, it is terrifying. We cannot know what else the military
dictatorship believes it can get away with, or what it will do to stay in
power.
Indeed, what are we to make of the Thai coup makers' dispiriting use
of martial law and censorship, and its growing political ambition evidenced by
appointing an effective military majority to the just established National
Legislative Assembly? This is a level of khaki ambition unseen since
the Cold War 1970s. And it finds diplomatic support in Chinese and Burmese
quarters. On display is a gritted-tooth spit in the face of history-as-freedom as
the junta tries to convince itself of its legitimacy, as much as others, by
double speak - hence the arrest of those at
downtown Paragon Mall caught reading Orwell's
1984. This is not so much a case of an emperor with no clothes as
commoners with mirrors.
While conspiracy theorists view the military return to power as a plot, the decision
to assume sovereign power by might, lies
not in some original sin of the will to power, but in political
circumstances surrounding the failure of competing political leaderships from
2005 onwards to settle the terms of their elite contest amidst emergent
mass movements. When given a conditional constitutional terrain on which to
contest their respective ideologies they each, at different times, failed to
submit to a general constitutional law, providing the emotional, political or legal
fuel to sustain a deadlocked
politics .
For the latest crisis, responsibility
at its gravest lies with the reactionary anti –Thaksin People’s Democratic
Reform Committee that led months’ long protests before the coup, and the opposition Democrat Party from which
the committee was spawned. From late 2013, Thailand’s political opposition transformed
itself into an outfit set on vandalizing Thailand’s relatively open electoral
system by unashamedly courting partisan legal agencies and paving the way for military
intervention. As egregious as Yingluck’s Pheu Thai party may have been to its
opponents, smart oppositional strategy may have eroded the substantial
electoral power that has delivered Thaksin-sponsored parties to power in 2001,
2005, 2007 and 2011.
Instead, the opposition effectively cheered
for a military coup knowing that it would not be a “soft coup” like 2006. It now supinely allows the military to stamp
its full authority on post-coup institutions , underlining the desperation of those wanting to eliminate the “Thaksin
regime”, of which the Yingluck government was considered a proxy. That regime was
considered by royalist liberals and conservatives a threat to monarchy,
democracy, clean government and liberty. The only thing now supposedly secured by
the coup is the monarchy. Democracy and liberty are being redefined along
conservative guardianship lines, echoing military dogma from the 1960s. As for
clean government, elements in the military are just as corrupt as some
politicians evidenced by a number of procurement
scandals.
Some in the military believe in the justice of redesigning
democracy, and as far as they can see most Thai citizens are smiling in
agreement, as required by coup-law. They will do well to remember the events of
1973 and 1992 when hundreds of thousands of democracy protestors forced
dictators to exit in shame. Hubris always has an expiry date.
____________________________________________
Piece written last week but was unable to place it.