Anti-populist coups: Thaksin, dictatorship and Thailand’s new constitution

March 27, 2019| SPORTSCARDBLOGS| 0 Comment

Anti-populist coups: Thaksin, dictatorship and Thailand’s new constitution

Pro-government protesters on the outskirts of Bangkok in a show of force following PM Yingluck Shinawatra's ouster, May, 2014. Vincent Thian/Press Association. All rights reserved.For
some years now Thailand has been undergoing a colossal political crisis, resulting
in the 2014 coup d’état, the second military coup in the past 8 years. This was
triggered by the
rise of populist Thaksin Shinawatra within Thai politics. Fear of his
powers mobilized the middle-class, elites and military against Thaksin.
Specifically, two military coups were aimed at putting an end to “Thaksin’s
party”, but both failed to achieve their goal. Thai society continues to be
divided, and the pro-Thaksin movement (Red
Shirts) retains its strength.

Thailand’s
dictatorial regime recently held a referendum on a new constitution, aimed at
reasserting control over Thai politics. Thai people voted in favor of the new constitution
believing that it might restore stability. However this seems far from likely
while Thailand’s political processes continue to be controlled by the military.
More likely, the junta’s voting system in the next elections will produce a
weak coalition administration and a Senate appointed by the army.

So why
did the military decide to end the rule of Thaksin’s party? What was the impact
of his populism on the nature of Thailand’s political system? And what is the ultimate
purpose behind the junta’s ‘New Constitution’?

Thaksin’s rise to power

The
Asian economic crisis in the late twentieth century prompted many powerful men
of business to turn to the management of state policies. In 1998 one of
Thailand’s most successful tycoons, Thaksin Shinawatra, founded the Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT) and three
years later managed to win
the elections. Thaksin
was committed to overcoming Thailand’s economic problems by developing populist
policies that gave some social protection to the lower classes. Hence, he introduced programs
such as virtually free health care, fuel subsidies and low-cost loans for
farmers. These populist policies (interventionist economic policies that became
known as Thaksinomics) improved the conditions for the poor and led him to a
comfortable win in the elections of 2005. Furthermore, his powerful populist rhetoric
facilitated the inclusion of under-privileged people, encouraging them to
pursue their interests through mainstream political processes. Thaksin’s populist rhetoric tended to divide society
into two opposing groups: on the one side, “the
grassroots, the non-privileged people”, and on the other, the “elite, aristocracy and royalists” of
the country.

Two military
coups

Thaksin’s popularity threatened the
palace and the military leadership of the country, who aspired to total control
of the political landscape. At the same time the middle and the upper classes complained
about his populist policies and authoritarian mode of governance. When the Thai
prime minister was plunged into economic scandal, this gave pro-monarchist and
nationalist forces an opportunity to get organized against Thaksin (and also
against electoral democracy), under the leadership of the “People’s Alliance for Democracy” (PAD).

Thaksin was forced to call early
elections, under the pressure of this political crisis. These elections were
boycotted by the opposition parties. Nonetheless, under-privileged people
continued to support the strong populist leader as his policies had improved their
lives. So Thaksin achieved a new victory in April 2006 in elections whose
results were promptly annulled by the Constitutional Court. In September 2006, Thaksin was
overthrown in a coup by anti-populist royalists and banned from participating
in the next elections.

In
2007, the TRT party had transformed
its name to “People’s Power Party”(PPP)
and once again participated in the elections. Samak Sundaravej managed to win
these key elections and to form a government, but the new parliament was
dissolved by the Constitutional Court on charges of fraud. The punitive decisions
of the Constitutional Court and efforts by the military to eliminate Thaksin’s
political party provoked the lower social classes of Thailand, and this led to
the creation of a mass popular movement (United
Front for Democracy against Dictatorship/ UDD). The “Red-shirts” movement continues to support Thaksin and democratic
processes in the country, fighting against the conservative PAD.

After
the PPP’s dissolution, the majority
of party members transferred to the newly founded “Pheu Thai Party”. In the elections of 2011, Yingluck Shinawatra (Thaksin’s sister), became the nominee of the
populist party and again won the elections. However, in the course of this,
aggressive antigovernment demonstrations and the polarized political landscape
led to a new political crisis which has inflicted severe collateral damage on
the country. Finally,
the military seized control of Thailand in 2014 to thwart a populist movement
that has won every national election since 2001. This coup was the twelfth
military takeover since the Asian country abandoned absolute monarchy in 1932.

The impact of Thaksin’s populism on the political system

Thaksin’s populist discourse has
deeply influenced the character of the political system and Thailand’s democracy,
both negatively and positively. On the one side, Thaksin’s authoritarian mode
of governance created a huge rift in the political system, while his party benefited
from the constitutional provisions designed to strengthen the prime minister’s
hand and to create more stable governments. Alongside this, several government
decisions seemed to directly benefit Thaksin’s family business (his own family
wealth tripled over his four year term). Moreover, the populist rhetoric that
divided society into two huge opposing camps (red and yellows) produced acute social
polarization. According to Pasuk
Phongpaichit & Chris Baker, Thaksin’s government “controlled the media, harassed civil society, and used state violence
in ways that recalled Thailand’s past military dictators”.

On the other hand, Thaksin’s
policies have managed to convince the majority of society, and to elicit
sustained loyalty mainly from the lower social classes – farmers and the
underprivileged. Thaksin’s populism was a response to the democratic demands of
the poor people for a better life. His politics fought against the monarchy, undermining
the traditional ability of the middle and upper classes to dominate politics
(business persons, bureaucrats etc.). Finally, the forcible removal of Thaksin from power created a mass
movement instilled with democratic ideas, which fights against the undemocratic
movement PAD and the military. The “Red Shirts” movement has caused large-scale
political instability, but it has brought to the fore critical questions about
the road to Thai democratization.

Thai Junta’s
new constitution

The dictatorship that was
established by General Prayut Chan-o-cha tried to stamp out Thaksin’s populist
party. Nonetheless, the strong mass movement of “Red shirts” seems to retain its strength. This profoundly worries
the military leaders and the monarchy. Thus, the military regime has decided to
organize a referendum on a new
constitution, which is guaranteed to create a new undemocratic political
system. This political system will be directly steered by military rule to
ensure that no chance is given to any populist political party hoping to emerge
in the future. As we see it, the two recent coups were the first attempt to
dissolve the populist forces and the new constitution is the second attempt.
Will the military leaders achieve their goal? Is this the end of populism in
Thailand?

Sports Card Blogs