Foes become friends as politics TURNS ON A DIME
Play
The old adage that there are no real friends or permanent foes in politics applies to our post-coup, military-controlled situation as well. Criticise or scold Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha all you like, but he seems to have succeeded where democracy re
Am I biased against the draft constitution being debated in the interim national assembly? Let me be clear on one thing: It’s my sincere, unwavering opinion that we Thais can produce the best charter the world has ever seen – and yet we’ll still be screwed. What the current draft looks like, therefore, doesn’t matter much as long as people don’t change. I, for one, was over the moon when the 1997 “People’s Charter” was enacted, introducing what appeared to be a formidable anti-graft mechanism, laying down tough measures to deter vote-buying, promoting civil rights like never before and unprecedentedly guarding against political conflicts of interests. What happened next? Well, I grew up.
Whatever Prayut might have been wrong about, he is right about one thing. Risking being branded a hypocrite, he calls Thailand a nation where self-serving rhetoric reigns supreme and little else matters. “It’s not helpful when people say we shouldn’t look at the cost when doing something for the poor,” he said. “What’s the point of even asking if the poor don’t have the right to own cars?”
He was taking aim at “populism”, obviously. A response, or so it seems, from Thaksin Shinawatra’s son was just as biting. “Don’t bother writing new rules to make it better,” Panthongtae said on Facebook. “Let’s just do what my dad suggested. We stick with all the good, unbiased principles and add just one clause to the new constitution. That clause should say, ‘No Shinawatra shall ever be allowed to play politics.’”
Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has joined the fray, and he made it look like a free-for-all. He still lambasted the “Thaksin system”, but he insisted that Prayut was being led astray by anti-Thaksin obsessions. “You should be afraid of the Thaksin system, yes, but you shouldn’t be afraid of democracy,” Abhisit told reporters. The proposed charter, he feels, wouldn’t be good for democracy.
So, we will do what Abhisit suggested – take Thaksin out of the equation. What do we have left, then? We have the two biggest political parties – for long at each other’s throats – closer to being united against the draft charter, supported by Prayut, though he never said so out loud. (This is assuming that Panthongtae was reflecting the prevailing thought in Pheu Thai Party, although he officially has no position in it.)
It’s definitely premature to say that the two parties are a few Prayut outbursts away from being reconciled. But we are seeing a faint light at the end of the tunnel. Again, we have to marvel at the ancient wisdom. The Democrat and Pheu Thai parties are like “Grandpa In” and “Grandpa Na” in that famous folktale, who quarrelled over a fish until “Grandpa Yoo” stepped in as judge and walked away with the best part of the fish to compensate for time lost in arbitration.
What are the common worries of the Democrats and Pheu Thai? They are afraid that the “party system” would be weakened because the charter draft allows for an “outsider” to be premier, for virtually independent candidates to compete in elections, and for selection panels to replace politicians in appointing top-level bureaucrats. It’s debatable as to whether the Democrat Party or Pheu Thai has more to lose. Pheu Thai might be expecting that more or less, whereas the Democrats could take one look at the draft and drop all the champagne bottles.
If you think the Democrats coming out guns blazing against the military is unimaginable, check out the 1991 coup, the 1992 uprising and all the related turmoil. The ’91 coup was against the Chatichai Choonhavan administration, but the coalition partners, initially targeted in a corruption crackdown, made a U-turn later to support and be part of a military-backed government. The Democrats, in the opposition when the coup occurred, decried this development and turned against the unlikely alliance.
The Democrats grabbed political power after the 1992 uprising, but then Chamlong Srimuang became a destabilising factor, handing control of his Palang Dharma Party to Thaksin, who would later alienate Chamlong and propel him into the People’s Alliance for Democracy. These activists next led a street campaign against Thaksin, until Army chief General Sonthi Boonyarat-glin, ousted the Thaksin government in the 2006 coup. Sonthi would in 2012, without actually admitting anything, play politics and advocate Pheu Thai efforts to grant Thaksin amnesty.
Does this sound like a cheap political drama written by a drunkard? For all the rhetoric that Prayut sees plaguing politics, the above two paragraphs contain only facts. So much for “ideological” strife.
You might then ask why it’s a good sign that the Democrat and Pheu Thai parties now seem more unified. After all, what’s good for them isn’t necessarily good for Thailand, is it? Well, my “good sign” doesn’t necessarily mean the whole country would benefit.
