Monarchy
Thaksin Shinawatra was a brutal man whose own commitment to democracy was less than stellar (to say the least), but that doesn’t really explain what happened in Thailand. Unfortunately, reporters haven’t bothered to interview anyone other than members of the Bangkok middle classes who wanted Thaksin out. We are regularly assured that democracy will be restored, but nobody asks why a government elected by a popular vote in a free and fair election needed to be removed by force shortly before the next election?
Fortunately Kotaji has done some investigation and rounded up some useful articles for us. The three most salient points seem to be as follows:
First, Thaksin’s populist economic policies angered neoliberals. Second, his recent move towards negotiation with the Muslims in the South (possibly resulting in greater regional autonomy) angered the king. And third, attempts to consolidate power before the next election by sidelining some of the king’s men clearly provoked a reaction.
Even where I don’t personally like a ruler, I find attempts to subvert democratic processes - processes which I think are far more fragile than most people think - deeply troubling. Nearly eight hundred years after the signing of the Magna Carta, people still seem enthralled by monarchy…
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
RE: #2. Here is what the post I linked to says:
The National Reconciliation Commission was set up, and it recommended establishing autonomous ‘Islamic’ law for the region, allowing Malay-Patani to be the official language, and setting up an unarmed ‘peacekeeping’ force for the region. The government promised to implement these, but the King’s Privy Council opposed the policies vehemently.
How is this “completely wrong”?
Firstly, because the situation (in the deep south of Thailand) is infinitely more complex. Very few people could really claim to understand what is going on there (myself included). The above statement is overly simplistic and fails to consider so many things.
The National Reconciliation Commission was set up as an independent body by the Thaksin government. The reasons for doing this were perhaps to relieve some of the pressure but the government or army weren’t necessarily going to follow the recommendations. The Commission’s relationship with the Thaksin government was not great. It told them things they didn’t really want to hear.
I have never heard about the Privy Council opposing the Commission before and would be curious to know the exact source of this quote. The Commission already faced enough opposition from the Thaksin Government itself.
I make this comment as someone who has spent some time living in Thailand and has some inside knowledge of Thai politics.
An anthropologist and documentary filmmaker, 
I think point two is completely wrong. Point one contains some truth and point three is the main reason behind it all.
I was no fan of Thaksin, but an elected autocrat is better than an unelected general.