Why Mass Protest is No Longer Enough to Fix Democracy in Thailand
Beware of Theatrical Democracy
Mass protests are a sign of people’s desire for greater democratization. From the Black Live Matter movement in Europe and North America, Hong-Kong protests that seek to curb the Chinese Communist Party influences, angry Lebanese citizens tired of government corruption, into Belarussians demanding a fairer election, the year 2020 happens to be full of hope. Therefore, it is no surprise that these protests are welcomed and even celebrated by democracies around the world.
Among this chaos, lies Thailand. Since mid-July 2020, tens of thousands of Thai, among them youth and high-school students risked their lives to protest against the incumbent government. The gathering was the largest event ever conducted since the military took over the government in 2014. Thailand is no stranger to strict laws that prohibit citizens from criticizing the government, and certainly had bitter experiences of disappearing activists (some of them eventually found dead in horrendous condition). But that did not stop the citizens from demanding political change no one had ever dare to utter before.
Among them, are 1) dissolution of the Parliament, 2) amending the constitution, 3) reducing the intervention of the Monarch in politics, and 4) investigation of the many deaths of Thai activists.
Certainly, these bold demands would only mean that the current Prime Minister, Prayut Chan-O-cha would have to face the overwhelming democratization wave from Thailand’s population. This essay would argue, however, that the protests that are currently happening would face a much greater challenge to bring significant political changes due to flawed democracy structure. It is flawed because it hasn’t fully shed the long undemocratic tradition of Thais’ feudal system and the elite mastery of theatrical politics.
Indeed, these protests that have caught so many observers’ attention could become yet another theatrics. meaning it could either be deliberately orchestrated or welcomed by the ruling elite to further their interests as they did in the past. Therefore, it is crucial to view these protests not as a mere contest between the force of democracy and dictatorship, because that might be exactly what the elite wants you to think. But first, we have to go back to ancient times to understand current events with better clarity.
Monarchism in Thailand
The Kingdom of Thailand is a Constitutional Monarchy in 1932, but the practice of governing remains relatively the same as it is since ancient times. The King has always become the ultimate arbiter of political decisions as well as the source of legitimacy. To maintain his rule, the Monarch had to delegate his power to networks of trusted elites and “good men”. Despite this elitist tendency, the true power a King or Nobles can wield is the control of the mass. The mass of ordinary people or serfs had always been the backbone of the Southeast Asian feudal system. It is they who worked the land and construct irrigation facilities for the kingdom, not the elite. If they are somehow unhappy with their lords, they can just leave them at the mercy of nature.
Therefore, the ancient lords had sought to extract loyalty from the serfs by instilling them with myths of the King’s divinity. Borrowed from Buddhist and Hindu Mysticism and combined with Animist believe of the locals, they promote their legitimacy as just rulers from their spiritual merit in the previous life. These myths are further promoted through theatrical rituals aimed to showcase the King’s splendor and its heightened status among its subjects. Gradually, their rule is increasingly accepted by the people. From this mystic aura, the Monarch could also legitimize other Nobles’ activities such as levying taxes. The noble on the other hand, promises loyalty and a share of their levied resources to the King.
Since this delegation is arbitrarily determined by the King, the Nobles have much incentive to gain the favor of the King through flattery and promises of loyalty. Eventually, this dyadic relationship between the King and Nobles further honed the Nobles to become skilled “Kingmaker”. Since a King that is too powerful could threaten their lives and wealth should they found themselves out of favor, they seek to create a King that they can control and to legitimize their other activities.
As a result, every succession of Monarch has always been a messy business in Thailand as Nobles squandered to ensure a preferable candidate take the place. While conflicts do often time ensued, the role of the mass is very marginal since the King is the main concern of the Elite yet they do not elect the King. However, keeping the mass from being politically active is necessary to maintain the system. As has been done in the past, theatrics and public display are preferable.
Fast forward to 1932, a coup from the Thai military ensued, accusing King Prajadhipok as a tyrant. This coup, however, is yet another theatrics to achieve a symbolic victory to prevent a real change; the penetration of Western values such as democracy to Thai society. The growing influence of Western-educated commoners had already worried the traditional elite, while Colonial power such as the British Empire had increasingly portrayed Siam (Thailand) as “backward” and despotic Kingdom in need to be “civilized”.
To tackle two birds with one stone, Prajadiphok chose a strategy of “feigned capitulation”. In it, the royalist faction of the military would stage a coup supposedly to depose the Monarch. Yet before it reaches its end, the King would instead choose to relinquish its status as an Absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional Monarchy. Prajadhipok would then proceed to sign the new constitution and automatically bless the new administration.
For international observers, this move just showed that the Thai Monarch is enthusiastically democratic and does not need to be civilized. For domestic subject (Citizen), the King is indeed a benevolent fatherly figure a country needs and had bestowed the military its blessings to rule. They may cheer on this progress, but this is all just a show aimed to pacify their desire for true democracy. As a political scientist Duncan McCargo observes;
‘Thai reform was at heart a means of preventing change, rather
than a method of implementing change’ (McCargo, 2001).
What Is Currently Happening
We are now in 2020, and protests are erupting around Thailand demanding democracy. First, let’s dissect who and why they are protesting. The obvious target in this protest is the Monarchy, King Vajiralongkorn, or King Rama X. His reign began in 2016. Ever since he rises to power, he systematically sought to increase his power. He reformed the provisions to allow him to spend time abroad without appointing a regent to represent him in his absence, thus granting him the right to rule Thailand from foreign countries such as Germany. He also placed army units under his direct control and taking more personal control of the Crown Property Bureau.
The second target of the protests is the military Junta that took power through a coup in 2014. Since then, it has filled the Senate with its handpicked loyal supporters, banning political parties, and orchestrated a phony election in 2019. Regardless, the Monarchy and the Junta is also having a conflict on its own.
The Junta feared the King which is full of scandals and stark in contrast with his predecessor, King Bhumibol had become too powerful to control. Since 2005, they began to diminish the prospect of Prince Vajiralongkorn from ever becoming a King by first reducing the influence of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in the Parliament. PM Thaksin was elected as Prime Minister in early 2000 and was very popular among rural Thai. Not only does this populist civilian government already worry the elite, but he is also closely associated with the Prince making him automatically undesirable to rule by the elite.
In 2006, the Monarchy learned a harsh lesson. They believed that ousting Thaksin from power and having it endorsed by the King would receive little to no repercussion. They were wrong as the people are angry for this move and Thaksin remain undaunted to rule as a Prime Minister. So they modify the old strategy of theatrics and wrapped it in a modern context; by organizing mass protests that are democratically justified to achieve undemocratic goals. in 2008, Queen Sirikit, the wife of King Bhumibol supported the Yellow Shirt movement to pressure Thaksin from power. They do this by provoking the regime for over-reaction that would give them a pretext for a coup.
They succeeded.
in 2008, Parliament elected Abhisit as Prime Minister. But instability continues as soon enough, the Red Shirt movement challenged the incumbent government that ended up with the election of Yingluck Shinawatra (Thaksin sister) in 2011. As we can see, this too does not last long as the military took over in 2014.
The prospect for future
This situation had left the Thai in an awkward position. They are right to be angry against the Monarch for its suppression of human rights and meddling with practical politics. But one of the necessary tools to decrease its power is the Parliament and the Prime Minister which are far from democratic nor fair. On the other hand, decreasing the power of the Parliament would not only give the pretext for the Monarch more unaccountable power, but it is also a Herculean task. Forcing the Junta to voluntarily gave power would be almost impossible.
Regardless, the risk of these mass protests to become a tool for each of them to further their power is ever-present. If he plays his card right, the Monarch might push the protest to attack the Junta first. On the other hand, the Junta could do the same. And if the Thai or other activists are not cautious, history might repeat itself.
