Democracy means having to tolerate 'red villages'

It takes two to tango. The proliferation of so-called “red-shirt villages” needs the Democrat Party and others who are alarmed at this development to make it a new political time-bomb. The opposition camp has called for a government investigation into who has been financing the designation of these villages, whose number has been rising fast. It didn’t help the situation when a roadside pavilion belonging to a “red village” in Songkhla was burnt down this past week.

Whether or not villagers harbouring and supporting the ideologies of the red shirts should come together and blatantly politicise their communities is debatable. There are the issues of political freedom, the promotion of democracy and increased public participation in politics. These things can be seen as being on the positive side. On the other hand, there are threats of discrimination against those who don’t share the red-shirts’ political thinking who may happen to reside in those villages. The red shirts proclaim themselves as defenders of the right to think differently, but it’s very doubtful if establishing red villages and not allowing any other views will serve that purported value.

Being sceptical is one thing, though. To demonise the red-shirt villages is another. As of now, most red-shirt villages are little more than a declarative sign that defines the villagers as pro-red and “pro-democracy”. The residents will vote for the Pheu Thai Party in elections, of course, but there is nothing wrong about that in itself. Some homes have put up photos of Thaksin Shinawatra, but again, that is their right and their political freedom. The bottom-line is that these villagers are Thais and there are so far no activities that endanger national security.

As things stand, red-shirt villages are a political evolution driven by the country’s decade-old political crisis. This crisis, as we know, feeds on itself. Failing to recognise red-shirt villages won’t make the phenomenon disappear; it could indeed have the opposite effect. Too much concern can lead to mistrust, and too much mistrust can become destructive paranoia.

The number of these villages has been jumping simply because the normally lengthy ceremonious launch has been cut short. Today, village chiefs may just gather people together and get the declarative signs from district red-shirt leaders. The easier the process, the quicker the number rises.

Naturally, the Democrats aren’t happy about the introduction of red-shirt villages in Thailand’s South, although their number in the traditionally Democrat region can still be counted on two hands. Again, being unhappy about it is one thing; trying to smear it is another. Too many smear campaigns have damaged this country enough. And make no mistake, everyone including the Democrats have been on the receiving end of it. 

The red shirts have driven the Pheu Thai Party to power. That they want to symbolise their strength through village signs is within their right. Recognition of these rights is the job of the rest of the country. To make sure that these rights are exercised in a responsible manner is the job of the red shirts themselves. If the line regarding who does what is not clear, mistrust will continue and possibly be amplified.

The issue is not just about being fair or about rights and freedom. Due to Thailand’s simmering political conflict, everyone has to be discreet. Red villages are a mixture of ideological evolution and political strategy. While so far harmless, it’s a sensitive mix. Divided Thais have learned that silly incidents can make things go terribly wrong. Whether or not the lesson is remembered is very crucial where the issue of red-shirt villages is concerned.

Of course, Thailand would have been much better off without the political “colours”. But we all have to cope with reality now, so the only option is to cope with it by being open-minded and responsible. If the red-shirt villages have been born as a result of Thais’ collective failure at compromise, at least we can use recognition of them as a new start, a sign that Thais can agree to disagree.