A place known for its exotic scenic beauty, economic development and sex workers, Thailand has seen it all. An alliance, led by People’s Power Party was floated in Bangkok on January 19th to share power in a “democracy-restoring” government in Thailand. There was no immediate reaction from the junta leaders to the PPP’s latest move. And, if the ruling junta does not stop the coalition, Surayud Chulanont, the now prime minister of Thailand, from King Bhumibol Adulyadej privy council, may soon have to return his seat to Thaksin Shinawatra. With that, Thailand will come a full circle, from being a constitutional monarchy to a military regime in 2006, and now back to being a democracy.
Military took over the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, in a bloodless military coup in 2006. The media was censored, people lost their freedom of speech, protest went unheard and its protectors abrogated the constitution and destroyed the laws of the country.
The Administrative Reform Council (ARC) justified its seizure of power, on the grounds that the Thaksin’s actions had frequently bordered on "lese majeste”. Lese majeste is being critical of the King or going against him in any way, which is punishable by the law. For example, when Thaksin ordered in 2001 the sidelining of Kasem Watanachai and Palakorn Suwannarat, two well-known royalist bureaucratic officials, the King within hours appointed both of them to his Privy Council.
He was also said to have created "social division like never before". The council also indicated that Thaksin had "politically meddled" with state units and independent organizations. Charges of corruption were also made against the government.
Army chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin explained on Thailand TV the military coup, saying that it was necessary to end intense conflicts in Thailand's society that Thaksin had created.
Thailand has seen a series of military rule, finally having a democratic form of government in 1997, with the dawn of its constitution. The coup of 1991 in Thailand ended when the masses took to the streets with demonstrations against the coup and in favor of restoration of democracy. King Bhumibol did not give his support overtly to the coup, the fact that he didn’t do anything against it as well as that the acting Prime Minister of the country is from his privy council, says it all.
According to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Thaksin’s government was a civilian autocracy. It did not respect human rights, the rule of law or democratic principles.
However, AHRC argues that a civilian autocracy is better than a military one as at least it does not and cannot take away the basic civil rights of the masses, where as the military one annihilates that as well, along with everything else.
Although US did condemn the military coup, it did nothing in support of its so-called support for democracy. But Thailand is an ally of US post- world war two, and US has a military base in Thailand as well, so it really didn’t have a problem with the coup. Before the coup, US aid to Thailand was around $35 billion. Whereas after the coup it saw a decline of jus $1 billion, making it $34 billion. Other than that, the fact that Thaksin was so keen on increasing his ties with China didn’t really make him a favorite with US as well.
Similarly, China brushed off the coup as an internal matter of the country. Thailand is newly industrialized market and a growing one at that, which no country wants to antagonize.
General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, a Muslim, claimed that the military coup would help improve the situation in the Southern parts of Thailand. Militants in the South regions of Thailand claims that the government is trying to destroy or dilute Malay culture and Islam. According to him Thaksin’s government has aggravated the problem rather than solving it. According to the International crisis group, the coup opened the way for improved management of the conflict in the Muslim South.
Surayud made an historic apology to southern Muslims for past abuses, announced an end to blacklisting of suspected insurgents leading to a significant decrease in arbitrary arrests, and revived key conflict management institutions disbanded by Thaksin Shinawatra in May 2002. Insurgent groups have responded to the government’s new approach by stepping up violence and propaganda aimed at undermining conciliation efforts. The insurgents’ village-level political organization has improved significantly in the last eighteen months but it is not clear how much this reflects an increase in local support. Many villagers fear both the insurgents and the security forces and are caught between the two.
Thailand has not seen any major economic depression or faced any problems from the international community as such, after the coup. If anything it has tried to improve the situation in its southern state. But the fact that the military coup did compromise with the basic foundation of a country’s progress, the freedom of its people is not justifiable in any case. How successful was this coup, and how strong is the desire of the masses of Thailand to have a democracy will be seen in days to come.
Military took over the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, in a bloodless military coup in 2006. The media was censored, people lost their freedom of speech, protest went unheard and its protectors abrogated the constitution and destroyed the laws of the country.
The Administrative Reform Council (ARC) justified its seizure of power, on the grounds that the Thaksin’s actions had frequently bordered on "lese majeste”. Lese majeste is being critical of the King or going against him in any way, which is punishable by the law. For example, when Thaksin ordered in 2001 the sidelining of Kasem Watanachai and Palakorn Suwannarat, two well-known royalist bureaucratic officials, the King within hours appointed both of them to his Privy Council.
He was also said to have created "social division like never before". The council also indicated that Thaksin had "politically meddled" with state units and independent organizations. Charges of corruption were also made against the government.
Army chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin explained on Thailand TV the military coup, saying that it was necessary to end intense conflicts in Thailand's society that Thaksin had created.
Thailand has seen a series of military rule, finally having a democratic form of government in 1997, with the dawn of its constitution. The coup of 1991 in Thailand ended when the masses took to the streets with demonstrations against the coup and in favor of restoration of democracy. King Bhumibol did not give his support overtly to the coup, the fact that he didn’t do anything against it as well as that the acting Prime Minister of the country is from his privy council, says it all.
According to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Thaksin’s government was a civilian autocracy. It did not respect human rights, the rule of law or democratic principles.
However, AHRC argues that a civilian autocracy is better than a military one as at least it does not and cannot take away the basic civil rights of the masses, where as the military one annihilates that as well, along with everything else.
Although US did condemn the military coup, it did nothing in support of its so-called support for democracy. But Thailand is an ally of US post- world war two, and US has a military base in Thailand as well, so it really didn’t have a problem with the coup. Before the coup, US aid to Thailand was around $35 billion. Whereas after the coup it saw a decline of jus $1 billion, making it $34 billion. Other than that, the fact that Thaksin was so keen on increasing his ties with China didn’t really make him a favorite with US as well.
Similarly, China brushed off the coup as an internal matter of the country. Thailand is newly industrialized market and a growing one at that, which no country wants to antagonize.
General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, a Muslim, claimed that the military coup would help improve the situation in the Southern parts of Thailand. Militants in the South regions of Thailand claims that the government is trying to destroy or dilute Malay culture and Islam. According to him Thaksin’s government has aggravated the problem rather than solving it. According to the International crisis group, the coup opened the way for improved management of the conflict in the Muslim South.
Surayud made an historic apology to southern Muslims for past abuses, announced an end to blacklisting of suspected insurgents leading to a significant decrease in arbitrary arrests, and revived key conflict management institutions disbanded by Thaksin Shinawatra in May 2002. Insurgent groups have responded to the government’s new approach by stepping up violence and propaganda aimed at undermining conciliation efforts. The insurgents’ village-level political organization has improved significantly in the last eighteen months but it is not clear how much this reflects an increase in local support. Many villagers fear both the insurgents and the security forces and are caught between the two.
Thailand has not seen any major economic depression or faced any problems from the international community as such, after the coup. If anything it has tried to improve the situation in its southern state. But the fact that the military coup did compromise with the basic foundation of a country’s progress, the freedom of its people is not justifiable in any case. How successful was this coup, and how strong is the desire of the masses of Thailand to have a democracy will be seen in days to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment