Learning from the 19 September Coup: Advancing Thai-style Democracy?

LEARNING FROM THE 19 SEPTEMBER COUP Advancing Thai-style Democracy? Surin Maisrikrod Two days after the 19 September 2006 coup, British political scientist Duncan McCargo commented on the uncivilized way the Thais used to resolve a political problem. He remarked in the Guardian: "At this moment Thailand's self-satisfied elite should be filled with a deep sense of shame: why did they prove unable to oust Thaksin without resorting to another anachronistic military intervention?"1 In fact, a day after the coup, McCargo said on BBC World Service that, after all these years, the Thais had not learned anything about democracy and the rule of law. In his view, clearly, this was a setback for democracy. On the face of it, there was nothing new about the recent coup. The armed forces, led by the army, seized power from a popularly elected government that was corrupt and had abused its power, and promised to return the country to democracy. This kind of "vicious cycle" was prevalent in Thailand during the 1970s and 1980s, when the oscillation between brief parliamentary politics and military takeovers was more frequent. However, if one takes into account Thai cultural and historical factors, which inevitably shape the country's political system, there are a number of issues that distinguish this latest democratic reversal from the others. What is most interesting is the emergence of the idea of a "Thai-style democracy" (TSD) as a legitimate alternative to Western-style democracy. This is something that perhaps the Thai and Western analysts of Thai politics have not paid enough attention to over the past 74 years. The notion of a TSD is emerging along with a heated debate about the merits of the coup among Thai intellectuals. This debate is multifaceted. First, the role of the monarchy in the development of Thai democracy has been Surin Maisrikrod is Senior Lecturer in the Political Science at the School of Arts and Social Sciences, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia. Learning from the 19 September Coup: Advancing Thai-style Democracy?341 highlighted more than ever before. Second, the coup is seen as a riposte by the old guard traditionalists — or some might say royalist- traditionalists — against a formidable Thaksin-led political alliance comprising various power groups and the capitalist class — who had during the past five years marginalized the former. This makes the 19 September coup unlike many past coups which were staged by the conservative forces to prevent the political influence of the Left. Thirdly, the coup could pave the way for a return to the "bureaucratic polity" that was dominant in Thai politics after 1932 but had faded in the past 15 years or so. Fourthly, the role of electoral politics in Thailand, particularly its role as a legitimizing mechanism for political office-holders has been debated. This article deals with these issues and TSD before discussing the political implications of the newly politicized rural areas. Institutional Reform under the Constitution of 1997: Too Idealistic? A brief discussion of the historical context within which Thaksin's prime ministership emerged is relevant to understanding the key issues arising from the coup, which would in turn impact profoundly on future political developments in Thailand. Thaksin's government was a product of the political reform movement that emerged in the aftermath of the "Black May" of 1992 when a "middle-class revolution" toppled the military regime led by General Suchinda Kraprayoon. The 1997 Constitution was the culmination of this reform movement. The Charter, hailed as the most progressive and democratic the country ever had, represented a major attempt to put in place key measures and institutions for further democratization of Thai politics. The main features of the institutional reform included the following: • Promotion ofpeople'sparticipation in the politicalprocess andpolicy-making: This included strengthening the rule of law and human rights; freedom of speech, religion, and assembly; rights to receive health care and 12 years of education at the state's expense; and the right to access public information in possession of government agencies. Other constitutional provisions in this area included the requirement for a minimum of 50,000 eligible voters to directly submit a draft bill to the parliament or to...