Thailand in Transition

In the Name of Democracy: Thailand in transition.

Times of India. Sept 21.2006

John Samuel



Bangkok, the city of smile, looked rather quite and grave. There were hushed talks about a coup. The TV channel suddenly started playing national anthem and the video clippings of King and all the international TV channels disappeared. Military vehicles were moving around the city. On Sept 19th at around 10 in the night, the taxi driver confirmed that there was a coup and advised me to rush home as there could be a fight between different factions of army. Thailand saw 18nth military coup since the first military coup happened in 1932. It seems the Coup was rather smooth and there was hardly any inconvenience to the people of Bangkok.

This military coup is significant because it happened after fifteen years of experiments with democratic governance. This coup is in the name of ‘restoring’ democracy by capturing power from the ‘democratically’ elected care taker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Though there are voice of protest from civil society and democratic activists, the people of Bangkok seem to be happy with the departure of Thaksin, the key protagonist at the centre stage of Thai politics. There is a mix of quite celebration and untold anxiety among the people. There is a strange sense of silence in Bangkok symbolizing the ambivalence of democratic process in Thailand.

Thailand is once again torn between the military power on the one hand democratic aspirations on the other. This Coup is also interesting as the leader of the Administrative Reform Council that lead the coup, is Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratklin, the first Muslim Chief of the Army in a predominantly Buddhist country. Though Constitution and Parliament have been terminated, it is also noteworthy that the Privy Council headed by Gen. Prem Tinsulanonda, an advisor to the King and who was in power from 1980 to 88, is playing a significant role in the new political context. Thailand’s experiments with democracy is entering again a rather uncertain and turbulent phase.


The politics and society of Thailand have been shaped by the stable and highly revered monarchy, military and religion. Even when there were spells of democratic government, these political forces shaped the discourse and sustained the power base. In fact, even after fifteen years of democratic experiments most of the TV channels and radio networks are still controlled by the Military.

Thailand, with a population 64.1 million, emerged as one of the most significant countries in South East Asia, with a relatively stable democracy and economic recovery, after the financial crisis in 1997. The main protagonist in Thai politics during this phase has been Thaksin Shinawatra. Thaksin symbolized the strength and limitations of the Thailand’s experiments with Democracy.

The corporitisation of Thai politics happened with the advent of Thaksin. He is a third generation Chinese- Thai, born in 1949, in the northern city of Chiangmai. Starting his career as a Police Officer in 1970 , he went on do a PhD in Criminology in the USA, on a government Scholarship in 1973. On his return , he became one of the most successful businessmen and became a billionaire within a span of just fifteen years! He started his first computer dealership in 1987 and went on the build a Shin Corporation, one of the biggest business conglomerates in South East Asia.. He founded Thai Rak Thai( Thai loves Thai) almost like a corporate venture, with its headquarters in one of the big towers owned by the Shin Corporation.

Like an intelligent investor he invested money and got many rich Thai corporate magnets as the shareholders in his new political venture. Thai Rak Thai was neither right nor left; it was more of corporate venture, using communication, technology , mobilization tactics and media , making use of the insecurity after the financial crisis of 1997, selling dreams of nationalism as well as economic recovery. Within a span of three years of launching the corporate venture of a political party, Thaksin became the Prime Minister in 2001.

During one of his interviews, Thaksin said “ democracy is just a means to get power ”. In many ways, this exposed his rhetorical commitment to democracy and his real efforts to run the country like the CEO of a business corporation. In the process, Thaksin ended up subverting every institution and process of democracy. He not only corprotised his party, he attempted to corportise the state as well. He used populist poverty eradication programmes and pro-poor rhetoric and on the other hand he increasingly favoured big corporations, including his own, and went on to privatize everything. He did not like criticism and fancied him self following the foot steps Mahateer Mohammed of Malaysia or developing Thailand in the form of a “democracy” like Singapore. In the process he ended up as a populist authoritarian corporate leader, using democracy as a means and as rhetoric to legitimize his power.. That is why he failed to provide political solution for the political unrest in Southern Thailand, caused by the Muslim minority population. More than 1000 people were killed within a span of months. Apart from this, he has been accused of rampant violation of human rights, especially because of extra judicial the killing of an estimated 2500 suspected drug peddlers in 2003.

Through clever political management as well as media campaign, Thaksin won his second term with land slide majority ( 377 seats out of 500 parliament seat) in the election in February 2005. However, during his second term he became increasingly unpopular among the civil society, political class as well as middle class in Bangkok. The perceived subversion of law and institutions to sell off his family stake in Shin Corporation for a whopping 1.9 billion US Dollars, without paying any tax, to a powerful investor in Singapore, created huge political backlash. This resulted in unprecedented political mobilization against Thaksin. As a part of his “put up or shut up” policy he dissolved the parliament , and declared snap poll in April 2006. Though the main opposition Democratic Party and others boycotted the election, Thaksin won 57% of the vote. However, the constitutional court declared the election null and void and asked the government to conduct fresh election. Thaksin decided to continue as the caretaker prime minister, in spite of the widespread protest against him.

Thaksin is a hero, villain and victim of the new democratic experiments in Thailand. He used democracy as means, with his corporate investments and new found wealth, to capture power for its own sake. He ended up as a victim of his own unprecedented success of being the only elected Prime Minister, successfully completing a term and reelected. He also became a victim of his own sense of invisibility and a democratic rhetoric and pretensions. So not many people are shedding tears for Thaksin and his brand of democracy.


In the political landscape of Thailand, the unifying and stabilizing force is the highly revered King Bhumbol Adulyadej. He is the head of the state for the last sixty years, the longest serving monarch in the world. He commands a unique sense of moral authority. In spite of several political coups, the gentle manner and rare interventions of the King helped to stabilize the polity and political process in Thailand. In the present political impasse, the ordinary people of Thailand hope that King will help to restore the process of democracy, in spite of the Coup. It is yet to be seen the promised restoration of democracy will help to create genuine democratic political process and space in Thailand, “ the land of Free”.