Four months since the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) initiated anti-government protests in Bangkok, the situation looks more precarious than ever.
On Tuesday, the standoff turned fatally violent when riot police confronted the demonstrators. The deputy prime minister resigned and then called for a military coup; two of the PAD leaders were arrested, then released; and no one seems to know what will happen next.
On Thursday, The Irrawaddy interviewed Dr Naruemon Thabchumpon, the director of the Master of Arts Program in International Development Studies at the Faculty of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University. A specialist in comparative democratic studies and the politics of civil society and grassroots movements, she spoke about the failings of the PAD, the government and the security forces, and she urged all parties to restrain from using violence and to solve the political crisis through negotiations.
Question: Whenever there is a crisis in Thailand, the country’s academics usually play a major role in providing perspective, in commentaries and analyses. What is the feeling among Bangkok’s academics since riot police clashed with PAD demonstrators in front of parliament on October 7?
Answer: In my opinion, there are problems on both sides. We have debated whether the police followed proper procedure in dispersing the demonstrators, especially in using tear gas, which resulted in one fatality, and some 40 major and 400 minor injuries.
Basically, the police might say that they acted legitimately, because the new government has a time limit to announce a policy statement (15 days) and the deadline fell on October 9. It was a constitutional problem.
However, the police can’t deny responsibility, because as state authorities, they can’t just hit people because the people disagree with the state.
On the other hand, we question the PAD leaders’ preparations for such a police dispersal. The PAD’s motive was that they do not want the government to be able to address the new government’s policies. When we talk about violence, we can’t talk only about physical violence. We need to talk about “vocal violence” in creating the possibility of violence. Both sides have to be criticized.
In fact, the government had several options: First, they could have changed the location of the parliament meeting when they already knew that the PAD had occupied all the entrances to the parliament; Second, they could have negotiated with the PAD leaders to open the gates for the MPs; Third, they could have used shields, batons, handcuffs and water cannons to disperse the crowd.
In all civilized countries, the use of tear gas is a last step. In this case, the police didn’t use anything except tear gas. This is the first problem. I listened to what a high-ranking police officer said: that the demonstration had been taking place for more than 100 days so they didn’t need to warn them any more. You can’t talk like that. As police, you have to do just that. Secondly, when police fire tear gas, they have to aim it 45˚ into the air; but they aimed directly at the crowd and fired. They later admitted that the border patrol police were untrained and didn’t know how to shoot tear gas. This is a problem of mismanagement and improper conduct.
Q: Instead of deploying the metropolitan police force, they used the border patrol police. Why did this happen and from which border area were these police called in from to crack down on the demonstrators?
A: Some police probably came from Ratchaburi Province (80 km west of Bangkok, bordering Burma) You might say that the metropolitan police were already being used inside the parliament building—that there were not enough of them because they also had to take care of the MPs, the political leaders and other places in Bangkok.
Basically, this is an example of the mismanagement. If you want to handle or disperse demonstrations, you need to use trained riot police. In this case, the police and those in charge need to take responsibility.
Even though I disagree with him on many issues, I admired former Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who resigned as deputy prime minister by showing his responsibility for the injuries to people on the morning of October 7. But I didn’t hear a word of sorrow from the other responsible persons, such as the prime minister or the house speaker.
The second group that needs to take the responsibility is the PAD leadership. I think theirs was a poor and unplanned strategy. You can say that you have the right to organize or assemble under the Thai constitution. But even in a peaceful demonstration, the leaders have to inform the authorities and be prepared for the police to disperse the demonstration.
If we are to talk about peaceful demonstrations or non-violent action, strictly speaking, we have to follow the principles of Gandhi. You can’t just say that the crowd used Molotov cocktails because they were angry. You can’t put barbed wire, car tires and gasoline in front of the demonstration. This creates a conspiratorial feeling on whether you really want violence or non-violence.
If we compare this to the Burmese situation, the strongest point of Aung San Suu Kyi is that she allows herself to suffer by going on hunger strike or adopting non-violent action, rather than creating anger. I think this is a lesson that the PAD leaders need to be aware of.
Q: Do you think that the military leadership is shifting from the paradigm of the old-fashioned coup d’état to a new era of Thai military?
A: I don’t think. If a metropolitan police officer was burned by a Molotov cocktail on October 7, it could have brought about another military coup in Thailand. But the military leaders have already learned that it is very, very difficult to run the country after a coup. They learned that the 2006 coup didn’t solve the problems of the country. It is easy to conduct a coup, but I don’t see any military leaders who are strong enough to run the country, especially in these times of global economic recession.
Q: Although the military commander in chief is more powerful than a civilian politician, can he really play the role of negotiator?
A: The reason that Chavalit was appointed as deputy prime minister was to be mediator between the government and the PAD. It didn’t work because of mismanagement.
Avoiding a military coup, the Thai military has now gained credibility. When the police couldn’t handle the crackdown on the PAD demonstration on October 7, the military stepped in—not to crack down on the demonstrators, but just to protect state property in that area, including the Chitralada Royal Palace.
Q: Some people said Thai democracy is progressing, pointing to a greater openness and public participation in politics. But others say it might be heading toward anarchy. What is your opinion on that?
A: Probably not toward anarchy yet. I think Thai democracy is at a critical juncture. There is now a bipolarizing conflict between the electoral democracy and the aristocratic democracy. The electoral democracy is monopolized by the capitalists, losing plurality. The electoral system in Thailand has already been damaged during the last ten years of the parliamentary process. That is trouble, and to solve the problem you need electoral reform, not to destroy democracy. This is what the PAD need to learn if they really want to be a people’s alliance for democracy.
There must be space for negotiation and compromise. Nobody will win 100 percent. One value of democracy is tolerance, and October 7 gave us a lesson on patience and tolerance.
Q: What is your involvement as an academic at this critical moment in Thai politics?
A: I joined the movement as part of a non-violent action team, which is composed of academics, social activists and artists. We issued a statement on non-violent practices on the evening of October 7. That night, we went to Democracy Monument, lit candles and prayed for those who were dead and injured during the violence.
As non-violent practitioners, we encouraged both sides to disarm and to start negotiations.
Also, about 30 universities held a meeting and issued a statement of concern. We also commented on the action of the medical team at Chulalongkorn University Hospital which refused to take care of the wounded police officers. They can’t do that even if they feel angry and frustrated. They have to value the principle of nondiscrimination.
You can construct a political system, but you can’t bring back a life. We support non-violent means and hope to lead the public to become more rational. This is the duty of the academics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment