It all comes down to the money

The crux of the issue is no longer about the people’s rights and freedoms. If we erase the legal consequences of the 2006 power seizure by the Thai military, as suggested by the academic group calling itself “Nitirat”, one immediate, tangible outcome will concern money – a gigantic amount of money.
No matter what Nitirat is saying, nullifying the legal consequences of the coup that toppled Thaksin Shinawatra will bring the Bt46 billion seized from him, his family and business associates into question. Nitirat may not intend that, but Bt46 billion in cash is simply too big an entity not to rear its ugly head if the coup is declared null and void. There will be no way for our strife-torn nation to get around it.
What drives an ideal? The red shirts have had legitimate grievances and it could be a coincidence that the assets seizure took place just shortly before they descended on Bangkok to begin a massive and prolonged rally that was to end tragically. But this is not to say that the staggering amount of cash is not an influencing factor in Thailand’s political crisis. To say that it’s not requires a great delusion. 
Yes, the 2006 coup led to the dissolution of two political parties that won elections. And yes, the late Samak Sundaravej’s downfall must be counted as another result of the coup-related political turmoil. But if the coup unjustly took away the Thai Rak Thai Party’s legitimacy to rule, the pre-coup order is being more or less restored. Democracy’s fundamental concept – that the most popular political party is empowered to govern, to effect bureaucratic changes to suit its policies and style, to spend state budgets – is being met.
Then we have a little more complicated issue of the red shirts facing legal trouble stemming from their campaign against the coup. Those innocent offenders need help, but, again, do we need to go as far as wiping out legal consequences of the 2006 coup to assist them? How many of them are being affected by Constitution Court or Supreme Court rulings that can be traced to the coup? The answer is none.
As for the banned politicians, they will be “freed” next year. Whether the ban was just or not is not an issue here. The issue here is that none of them wants a fresh controversy that could put off the countdown to freedom. For good reason, we have not heard any of those 111 politicians welcoming the campaign to eradicate the legal consequences of the coup.
Which leaves us with the real unsolved issues of Thaksin’s jail sentence and his seized assets. His conviction in 2008 by the Supreme Court cannot be written off, but the punishment, which he’s yet to serve, can be lawfully toned down or even cancelled. An amnesty, no matter how difficult to achieve, is still possible without having to annul the coup.
What’s left then? Yes, staring menacingly at us like a mean dog at the dead-end of a soi is the money. It involves everything that Nitirat has been talking about – a “summary” investigation ordered by the coup-makers, a trial (in absentia) by the Constitution Court, as well as related charges that went other ways like the Supreme Court. If the coup had never happened, that massive sum of money would never have been seized, period.
So, the real question should be whether the money should be returned, now that all else has been falling into place as far as the good old democratic “order” is concerned. There’s a more important question, though. Will Nitirat dare admit that the real issue has to do with the money, and that the nation can’t rest in peace if it’s not addressed?
The group and its supporters have tried to distance themselves from Thaksin. In doing so, their reasons why the 2006 coup should be invalidated can only sound symbolic, while the real outcome of such an action has been awkwardly side-stepped. That’s where the scepticism Nitirat is facing has come from.
That is a bit of an irony, isn’t it? If Thaksin does represent democracy, Nitirat should not be afraid to associate its campaign with that mountain of cash. Why can’t the seven academics just come out and say, “Yes, apart from teaching military opportunists a lesson, we also want to prove that Thai democracy can’t be completed without the money returning to the rightful owner.”
Let’s forget the old democratic romanticism. “Men would rather live poorly with freedom than be rich in an oppressed society,” one saying goes. An ancient saying, of course. In the modern world, “democracy” needs money.