Wandering in ideological wilderness

Many political analysts have blamed poor strategies and the tactics of street protest for the failure. The group, indeed, failed at the fundamental ideological level, its rightist ideology found difficulty in getting acceptance in the 21st century.

 Pitak Siam’s leader, Boonlert Kaewprasit, proposed a difficult-to-accept idea – to shut down and freeze Thailand for at least five years. He called on the current government, which was elected by majority vote, to step down and hand over power to a few “good” people to run the country during the frozen period. Irrespective of whether he really meant it, the public recalled what had happened in neighbouring Myanmar in the 1960s.

The idea is absolutely against democratic principles and trends in the modern world, which mostly tilts toward democracy. The recent peoples’ uprisings, such as the “Arab Spring”, are for the installation of democracy, rather than a dictator, as the Pitak Siam group wanted to do.

The Pitak Siam group set a new tone in trying to steer away from such an outdated idea. Boonlert later denied his own words, saying he had never planned to freeze or isolate the country, but wanted to clean the country of corrupt politicians. That’s bad enough. Isolating any particular group of citizens out of politics is undemocratic.

The denial mode did not work as he failed to propose a clear political platform on how to run the country later on, or what kind of political system would select “good people” into the administration. If those people are really “good”, why give them only five years?

A retired four-star general, Boonlert might not have had a clear political idea when he called the demonstration, but many intellectuals keen on politics – such as former intelligence tzar Prasong Soonsiri, legal expert Kaewsun Atibodhi, well-known activist and leader of the multicoloured shirts, Dr Tul Sitthisomwong, and many other political activists who joined the bandwagon – were supposed to offer a political platform to the public. But they did not.

All key persons who allied with the Pitak Siam group had only one single commonality – a hatred for former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his associates. They are okay with anything that is against Thaksin.

However, a political development in this country is something bigger than the problem of Thaksin. It’s a fierce struggle between the “established elite” who champion old values and a royalist regime, vis a vis a “new force” who want democracy, equal rights and modernisation.

The anti-Thaksin group, who were seen actively in Pitak Siam, subscribed to a rightist as well as conservative political ideology and tagged along with the traditional elites to choose the wrong way in the struggle when they supported a military coup to topple Thaksin in 2006.

Their dream team picked by the junta failed to deliver any good services to the people when they ran the country in 2007. After only one year in power, they needed to return the country to their most hated politicians.

Like him or not, Thaksin chose the right way in his struggle to resume power. He used all democratic instruments, including political parties and elections to install his camp in power. Thaksin offered elite-hating populism and pro-poor policies to run the country and promised to lead it to modernisation and prosperity. The current government under his sister Yingluck Shinawatra is the end product of the struggle.

Boonlert, his group, and many other right-wing activists who wanted to defeat Thaksin and his camp, badly needed to propose a new political platform that could offer the public benefit and lead the country in the right direction in the 21st century.

Military dictatorship, not to mention the absolute monarchy favoured by many rightists, belong to the last century. Even countries familiar with such styles of government for a long time, do not want them anymore.