The future of Thailand is certainly uncertain

Over at Foreign Policy in Focus, Johanna Son writes about The Certainty of Uncertainty in Thailand.

Thailand, a deeply hierarchical society, is currently experiencing a “complex form of class warfare, in which the middle class, motivated by anti-corruption sentiments, has mobilized as a barrier against a populist government with heavy support from the rural masses and urban lower classes,” explained political analyst and professor Walden Bello of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South. “What complicates it is that the traditional elites that benefited from the traditional political, economic, and cultural arrangements have encouraged the actions of these mobilized middle classes. These elites' power has been threatened by the Thaksin brand of populist democracy in a way that it was never threatened by the revolving-door type of parliamentary democracy prior to Thaksin.

Now led by its third president in less than a year, the only thing that seems to be sure about the future of Thailand is that instability will probably continue.

Thailand, not Canada, faces constitutional crisis

Here's a an interesting comparison of the current situation in the two countries from JOTMAN.

What in the world?

When I catch the news on the radio, it seems that while I am trying to finish this novel the world has been going to hell in the proverbial handbasket.

Truthdig offers a link to this analysis of the situation in Mumbai. Over at thenation.com, Robert Dreyfuss discusses where this situation might lead -- and it doesn't sound good.

Also at thenation.com, Barbara Crossette has the best analysis I've seen of the ongoing political crisis in Thailand, which has heated up once again.

Okay. Enough of the troublesome real world for a moment. I'm going back to the imaginary world that I need to bring some direction and conclusion to in the next one day and nine hours (give or take a few minutes).

Thailand still in crisis

JOTMAN seems to be a liberal guy who has an interesting blog that focuses mostly on international politics, though he has also been posting a lot about the US presidential race.

Back in September, I was trying to sort out the political crisis in Thailand. I summarized what mainstream sources of information had to say about the situation. But something seemed to be missing from the reports that I was reading. JOTMAN had a post that had a little bit of analysis and a lot of on-the-scene videos and commentaries.

Once Prime Minister Samek Sundaravej was forced to resign, I thought the crisis had settled down. But apparently, opponents and supporters of the ruling party are still clashing.

In this post, JOTMAN argues that the Thai people need to learn to work within their democratic institutions, rather than hoping for intervention from the king, as supported by The Economist. In another post, he analyzes the recent border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia.

What's cooking in Thailand?

On Tuesday night I found the news on JOTMAN. Thai Prime Minister Samek Sundaravej was forced to resign by Thailand's Constitutional Court.

As I reported at the beginning of this month, demonstrators have been trying to force Samek's resignation on the grounds that he was corrupt.

Now we in the United States have also seen some of our citizens call for the impeachment of our own president, George W. Bush. Given that I've always thought that Bush's behavior was sort of business-as-usual for the US empire, I've never been real big on impeaching him. The real problem is lots bigger than ol' W. But there's no denying the seriousness of the charges. We're talking things like starting the disastrous Iraq War on false pretenses, warrantless surveillance of US citizens, or dismissing US attorneys for political reasons. And the list goes on.

So what, may you wonder, were the grounds on which the Thai Constitutional Court ordered Prime Minister Samek to resign?

Um, it seems that the court thought he violated a provision of the Thai Constitution that forbids someone from accepting private employment while serving as Prime Minister. According to JOTMAN, Samek appeared on a few episodes of a cooking show on Thai television.

For more details, here's a link to a New York Times post that I found courtesy of JOTMAN. It has lots of background information, and seems to have other interesting links.

Because Samek's PPP party seems intent on re-nominating Samek to the post of prime minister, this ruling is unlikely to end the current Thai controvery, the Times reported.

I have an idea. Given that the anti-Samek protesters think that Thailand has too much democracy, maybe they'd like to have George W. for their prime minister? Maybe we could arrange some kind of a trade?

Update on the situation in Thailand

JOTMAN quotes the Bangkok Post as saying:

The government on Thursday approved an up-or-down national vote of confidence with a referendum that will ask every voting citizen the question: Do you want the government to continue in office?

More on the situation in Thailand

Directly below you will see a summary of information on the situation in Thailand from mainstream sources.

Here are two other things worth checking out:

A blog called JOTMAN has a long post here, with a wide variety of sources, and links to videos taken on the scene. The post says that it is continuously updated. This looks really interesting and informative, but it is starting to get past my dinnertime, and I don't have the brain cells left to summarize it. Just look at the darned thing, okay?

Then, I also found this fascinating paper on Militarization and Terrorism and counter – terrorism measures in Thailand: Feminists and women human rights defenders.

Among many interesting points, author Virada Somswasdi says that:

In contemporary Thailand, whilst some feminists oppose militarization, a good number of women’s rights activists (however, categorization of feminists and women’s rights activists needs a debate.) are swayed by the hatred of the former corruptible civilian prime minister and impatience in the judicial and democratic process to prosecute him and his cronies, thus give support to the 2006 military coup d’etat, and indeed militarization and patriarchy.

Okay. Time for me to leave the beautiful Belle Isle Public Library and go home to my cat and my dinner.

What is going on in Thailand?

Anti-government demonstrators seem bent on bringing down the government of Thailand, either directly or by provoking the military to intervene and overthrow the prime minister. The progressive and feminist web sources I usually read all seem to be silent on the situation. (Everyone seems to be focusing on Hurricane Gustav, Sarah Palin, and the Republican National Convention.) For what it's worth, here is what I've been able to piece together from mainstream sources.

The Financial Times of London condemns the demonstrations:

Less than a year since elections restored democratic rule after a military coup in 2006, Thailand has plunged into fresh instability. The worst violence seen in Bangkok for 16 years leaves Samak Sundaravej, the Thai prime minister, with few options. Clashes between anti-government protesters and supporters of the administration have left one dead and dozens injured. With air and rail services badly affected, tourism suffering and public sector unions threatening a national strike for Wednesday, the imposition of emergency rule in the capital on Tuesday was inevitable and justified.

The protests began a week ago when supporters of the People’s Alliance for Democracy occupied and barricaded Government House. The PAD accuses Mr Samak’s People Power Party of being a front for Thaksin Shinawatra, exiled former prime minister, and of buying votes in last December’s election. It says it wants to clean up the electoral system.

If so, it is going the wrong way about it. The PAD is subverting parliament by provoking a bloody confrontation with the government designed to bring about its collapse and the intervention of the army.

According to the Associated Press:

Democracy in Thailand has a history of fragility, with the military staging 18 coups since the country became a constitutional monarchy in 1932. Samak's faceoff with anti-government protesters is only the latest conflict in two years of political tumult.

The group behind the anti-Samak protests, the People's Alliance for Democracy, formed in 2006 to demand the resignation of then-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, eventually paving the way for the bloodless coup that ousted him. Thaksin, a telecommunications tycoon, recently fled to Britain to escape corruption charges.

Many of the same allegations behind the uprising against Thaksin — corruption, stifling the media and the ruling party's buying votes from the rural poor with cash and other benefits — dominate the protests against Samak, who led Thaksin's allies to victory in last December's election.

According to economist.com:

Another coup, by some or other bit of the armed forces, is possible. So far General Anupong is backing Mr Samak, who shrewdly built bridges with the army chief. The general strengthened his grip in a recent shuffle of senior soldiers. But the PAD’s backers include several hardline generals who are determined to topple the prime minister.

Within hours of the state of emergency being declared, the country’s Election Commission threw fuel on the flames, saying that it would ask the courts to disband the PPP for alleged vote fraud in the general election last December. The PPP became the vehicle for supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister deposed in the 2006 coup, after courts dissolved his original party. The PPP won by far the most seats in the election, since when it has governed in a six-party coalition with a strong majority. The election suggests that Mr Thaksin and his allies remain popular, despite many allegations of corruption and abuse of power.

Pro-Thaksin protesters are likely to be further enraged by the Election Commission’s ruling. As they see it, a Bangkok-based royalist clique, ranging from the PAD’s leadership to elements of the armed forces, the bureaucracy, the courts and palace officials, is conspiring to overthrow democracy to protect its privileges.

There may be some merit in this argument. The Associated Press points out that the PAD (People's Alliance for Democracy) actually has undemocratic aims:

Despite its name, the alliance — a mix of royalists, wealthy and middle-class urban residents, and union activists — argues Western-style democracy doesn't work for Thailand. It says the ballot box gives too much weight to the impoverished rural majority, who the alliance says are susceptible to vote buying that breeds corruption. It wants most lawmakers appointed rather than elected.

The Financial Times give more details about PAD's demands:

The opposition group may have miscalculated. Its proposals for a parliament with 70 per cent of its members appointed and 30 per cent elected are less a recipe for democratic reform and more a throwback to authoritarian rule. They have not won broad public support and newspapers have criticised the group’s actions. The Election Commission’s decision to recommend the Supreme Court disband the PPP for election fraud could fuel suspicions that a Bangkok elite, including elements of the army, bureaucracy, court and palace officials, is conspiring to stifle the country’s fragile democracy.