The Start of Another Crisis in Thailand?

By POKPONG LAWANSIRI

Many analysts believe that the recent decision by Thailand’s Constitutional Court to dissolve the People’s Power Party (PPP), Chart Thai Party and Matchima Thipatai Party—the three main parties in former Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat’s coalition government—will put an end to the country’s political crisis. What they have not considered is the strong possibility that events leading to and resulting from the dissolution could actually lead to a larger and wider conflict in Thai society.

First, it must be noted that that the constitution that was referred to by the Constitutional Court as the legal basis for the dissolution of the three parties and the barring of 109 party executives from involvement in politics for five years is an undemocratic constitution. The Constitutional Drafting Assembly that drafted it was handpicked by the military following the September 19, 2006 military coup d’état. It contains a particular clause (Article 237) that seems to be directed against ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party, which was dissolved in May 2007 in a similar process.

It should also be noted that during the August 2007 referendum, more than 10 million people, or 44 percent of eligible voters, rejected this military-drafted constitution. This was despite intensive media campaigns facilitated by Gen Surayud Chulanont’s military government to convince the population to support the constitution.

Second, many of those who are critical of the tactics used by the militant People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) are questioning why PAD leaders and their supporters have not been brought to justice for committing grossly unlawful acts. The PAD is responsible for the siege of Government House and Bangkok’s airports—serious breaches of the law that have so far gone unpunished.

The PAD’s violent protest tactics cannot be regarded as the exercise of “the right to peaceful assembly” as defined by the UN’s International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Thailand is a party to. Their methods included shooting and beating police officers, harassment of journalists and reporters and destruction of property. There have also been incidents where PAD leaders incited hatred and goaded their supporters to use force against academics, activists, politicians and all those who hold differing views. The ICCPR clearly stresses that “the right to peaceful assembly [may be restricted] in the interests of the protection of rights and freedoms of others.” It is obvious that the PAD protests were neither peaceful nor conducted in a manner which respects the rights of others.

Similarly, the siege of Government House and the two airports violated basic human rights such as the right to liberty, the right to free movement and the right to work. At least 300,000 passengers were affected. The economic damage to the airports is estimated at 350 million baht, while the takeover of Government House cost around 120 million baht. The airports’ closures resulted in 25 billion baht in lost business opportunities. The National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and the Thai courts have yet to address the issue of serious rights violations perpetrated by the PAD. Similarly, the Democrat Party has yet to criticize Somkiat Pongpaiboon, one of the five supreme leaders of the PAD, who is also an MP with the party.

How and when this crisis will end depends on whether or not the PAD will respect the rule of law and the democratic electoral process. To most human rights defenders and academics, the MPs closely associated with Thaksin Shinawatra are not the ideal leaders for Thailand, given that the TRT was involved in a series of human rights violations, ranging from its war on drugs to its hawkish policy in southern Thailand. Nevertheless, if most of the population voted for this party, we should respect the voice of the majority. It is a foolish assumption and a great insult to the majority of the voting population for the PAD to claim that the rural poor do not know how to vote properly.

The most recent PAD statement delivered by Sondhi Limthongkul is most worrying, because PAD leaders have pledged to return to the streets (and who knows where else) if the new government is formed by MPs from the now-defunct PPP. This disregards the votes of the majority. The sentiment of the poor who favored the TRT and its successor, the PPP, is that they have been robbed of their votes twice in an unjust manner through the dissolution of the TRT and PPP in 2007 and 2008, respectively.

If the former PPP MPs return to politics and form a new government, the PAD will continue to demand an unelected government and renew their calls for an undemocratic “new politics,” under which 70 percent of MPs will be appointed. If they do not get their way, it is very likely that the crisis will return. With the PAD determined to set Thailand’s political course, and the courts and other judicial bodies unwilling to address the PAD’s blatant violations, what we will see is the start of a new and more extreme crisis.

The writer is the Southeast Asia Program Officer of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA). The views presented in this article are the writer’s own.