Late in the evening of Sept. 19, a six-member military junta seized control of Thailand’s government in a bloodless coup while the Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, was attending the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York.
While tanks were rolling up to Government House, Mr. Thaksin contacted a Thai television broadcast station and began declaring a state of emergency; he was cut-off, though, by a broadcast of a military official declaring that the armed forces had temporarily taken control of the government and that power would be returned “to the people” soon.
The military attempted to justify the coup on the grounds that rampant corruption and government meddling in independent and legitimate institutions had forced the army and police to act.
The junta should have considered the definition of “irony.” Though the democratic government led by Mr. Thaksin was far from perfect, and in fact was most likely guilty on both aforementioned counts, it was a legitimate and democratically elected government, something sadly lacking in Thailand’s recent history.
Though this is the first coup in 15 years, Thailand has had 18 coups and almost as many constitutions since the absolute monarchy was abolished in 1932. All the more reason, then, for the leaders of Thailand to strive even harder to put this sad history behind them. Old habits die hard. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the lessons learned from past coups.
Southeast Asia has a tragic history with military juntas; once the military seizes power it often finds ways to “protect” democracy by installing an authoritarian government. Myanmar, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand have all found themselves in this predicament. Myanmar has been ruled by a military junta for the past 18 years; General Suharto of Indonesia restored democracy, but rigged the voting, resulting in his 32 year dictatorship; the former president of the Philippines, Joseph Estrada, was ousted in 2001 by urban protest and backdoor military dealings; Malaysia’s ruling party, UMNO, has historically tended towards authoritarianism and could be emboldened by the chaos in Thailand.
The political situations in each of these countries are shaky at best and dangerously despotic at worst. The coup in Thailand could encourage any of these totalitarian forces to overtly or covertly subvert any remnants of democracy in their respective countries.
The coup was brought about by a domestic schism. Mr. Thaksin was highly regarded by the poor rural population for his activist efforts, such as subsidization of health care, rural development, and debt-forgiveness; he was elected in 2001 and 2005 largely because of these efforts. On the other side of the coin, the urban and academic Thais loathed Mr. Thaksin for exactly the same reasons, arguing that these expensive measures went against the lean free-market approach that Thailand should adopt; they felt that Mr. Thaksin was holding them back from progressing as a developing nation. In one stroke they received their greatest wish and greatest fear.
Now, though, Thailand finds itself in a much worse position. Ultimately, it is the Thais themselves who have the most to lose. Military juntas are the worst economic planners among governments. They fall prey to foolish populism in an effort to suppress discontent and consequently wreck the economy, thus going against the wishes of the urban pro-business Thais. However, their populist efforts are also much too scattered and corrupt to have any semblance of efficacy, thus harming the poor. The Law of Unintended Consequences has a way of turning the best of intentions.
Those who called for Mr. Thaksin’s ouster were absolutely correct in condemning him for his conflicts of interests and abuse of power. Democracy, however, should not be subject to the will of a threatening mob. It inherently depends upon the peaceful transfer of power from one representative to another, and if necessary, in the legal prosecution of those who abuse their position.
Constant overthrow of an elected government is not democracy; it is mob rule. This breaks down all the institutions critical to a functioning democracy, including an independent judiciary needed to address the occasional flaw. In other words, autocracies, like coups and wars, are easy to start but hard to stop.
Many things should be taken from this. The most important, though, may have to be learned the hard way: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The shame is that Thailand must go through this again.
John Jose is a first-year accounting, international studies and Chinese triple major. He can be reached at [email protected].
