Subject: [SocialistWorker.org] The power behind the Thai throne
-----
View original article here:
http://socialistworker.org/2010/09/08/power-behind-the-thai-throne
Analysis: Giles Ji Ungpakorn
======== THE POWER BEHIND THE THAI THRONE ====================================
September 8, 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Giles Ji Ungpakorn is a Thai dissident who lives in exile today. Faced with
charges of the supposed crime of "lese majesty"--basically, not being loyal
to Thailand's head of state, King Bhumibol--and a possible prison sentence of
15 years, he fled the country a year ago.
Earlier this year, pro-democracy protesters known as Red Shirts demanded new
elections and were violently repressed by the military and ruling regime.
Thailand is currently run by politicians who took control of parliament in
2008 after the right mobilized street protests and an airport blockade to
oust a democratically elected government.
The rightist movement, known as the Yellow Shirts, are based on the middle
class, the wealthy, monarchists and military officers who ousted Prime
Minister Thaksin Shinawatra because of his policies that benefited the poor,
including the creation of a national health care program. The Red Shirts have
mobilized the rural and urban poor--not simply in support of Thaksin, as the
right claims, but to demand genuine democracy.
Here, Ungpakorn discusses the position of the Thai military--and why
pro-democracy activists must strengthen the mass movement against the
military, monarchy and the elite.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DESPITE THE fact that millions of Thais believe that the center of power
among the conservative elites today is the monarchy or the Privy Council, the
real center of power, lurking behind the throne, is the military.
The military has intervened in politics and society since the 1932 revolution
against the absolute monarchy. This is because the People’s Party led by
Pridi Banomyong relied too much on the military, rather than building a mass
party to stage the revolution. Yet it is also a cliché to just state the
number of military coups that have taken place. The power of the military is
not unlimited.
At important moments in history, the power of the military has been
significantly reduced or kept at bay by social movements and popular
uprisings. The post-1973 and -1992 periods are good examples. It would be
more accurate to state that the military is an important center of power
among many. Other elite centers include big business, political bosses and
high-ranking bureaucrats.
What is unique about the army, however, is its weaponry and decisive ability
to topple governments through coup d'états. The military has a monopoly on
the means of violent coercion and it has been prepared to gun down unarmed
protestors in the streets. The latest example was in April and May 2010, when
over 90 people died.
The primary role of the Thai military is to police and repress Thai citizens
on behalf of the ruling class. The only other additional role is as a
wealth-generating machine for the generals. The Thai military would be
totally ineffective in the very unlikely event of a war with any neighboring
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries. It failed to stand
up to the Japanese invasion during the Second World War, and it could not
possibly resist a serious invasion by any superpower.
Unlike the victorious militaries of Vietnam or Indonesia, it has never fought
a war of independence. The Thai army owns tanks purely for the purpose of
intimidating pro-democracy demonstrators and for staging coups.
On two occasions in the last 50 years, the military has been engaged in
internal civil wars. The first case was the war with the Communist Party of
Thailand in the 1960s and 1970s. The second case is the civil war against
Malay Muslim rebels in the South. Neither of these cases had or has a
military solution, and the military has been incapable of achieving victory.
Such rebellions are caused by deep-rooted injustices which fuel support for
the rebels. Most of the time, the brutality of the military merely acts to
refuel the rebellions. Only a political solution can bring peace. This was
the lesson from the war with the Communists.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE MILITARY may be powerful, but there are three factors which limit its
power: (1) the power of social movements; (2) the power of other sections of
the elite which hold economic and political power; and (3) the fact that the
military is divided by factionalism. The military also has to repeatedly
obtain legitimacy by claiming to protect the monarchy. This is because of its
obvious weakness in claiming democratic credentials.
The military never had absolute power, even in the 1950s and 1960s, and
always had to take into account the views of social movements, technocrats,
powerful politicians and big business. This is even more the case today after
decades of economic development and social movement struggles.
The 2006 coup could never have been successful if the royalist People's
Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and most of the NGOs had not given the green
light to such actions. The lack of organization among Thaksin Shinawatra's
Thai Rak Thai (TRT) supporters in 2006 also helped.
There was no Red Shirt movement at the time of the coup. When the Red Shirts
were actually formed, the military had to use behind-the-scenes actions to
get rid of the elected People's Power Party (PPP) government. One important
thing that the military did in 2008 was to refuse orders from the elected PPP
government to reopen the international airports, which had been blockaded by
the PAD mobs.
The military is split into squabbling factions, which are often a law unto
themselves. Those who engage in military watching are often over-obsessed by
the various factions and their leaders, forgetting the actions of other
societal players. The military factions are purely about self-interest with
little ideological differences. They are also linked to various retired
soldiers, businessmen and politicians.
When so-called "Watermelon soldiers" (green on the outside and red at heart)
launched a deadly attack on the military commander in charge of suppressing
the Red Shirts at Rajdamnern Avenue in early April 2010, they acted out of a
factional interest. They were unhappy with the temporary monopoly of power in
the army by the "Eastern Fighters" (Burapapayak) from the 2nd Infantry based
in Prachinbury.
Watermelon soldiers are a law unto themselves, not controlled by the Red
Shirts, and they have been shown to be useless in defending the demonstrators
when they were killed later in May. They are not known for their ideological
commitment to democracy either.
No one is allowed to hold on to top military positions for long. For
historical reasons, the army is the most powerful section of the armed
forces. The navy sided with factions of the elite that were on the losing
side, for example, siding with Pridi Banomyong, and the air force has been
underdeveloped. The police were powerful for a brief period under Police Gen.
Pao Siyanon in the 1950s, but they were soon dispatched to fourth rank in the
uniformed pecking order. The Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces is a
purely ceremonial position.
Real power lies in the hands of the army chief who can mobilize soldiers and
tanks on the ground to suppress demonstrators and stage coups. The position
of chief of the army is rotated to ensure an equal distribution of
opportunities. Since the death of Field Marshal Sarit, there has been no
single military strongman.
Generals must take their turn at the feeding trough. The military has
extremely lucrative commercial interests in the media and in the state
enterprises. Profits line the pockets of the generals. This, and the rampant
corruption connected to military purchases, drug dealing, illegal logging and
cross-border smuggling, all add up to a strong incentive for the military to
try to retain political influence so that they can continue their activities.
The wealth of the military also helps in turn to maintaining power.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VIOLENT COERCION is never enough to maintain political power. Legitimacy must
also be built through socialization and the use of ideology. "Democracy" as
an ideology is extremely powerful in Thai society and has been so for
decades. That is why past military dictatorships have never been able to
claim that they were good "dictatorships." They always tried to say that they
were "democratic" or "temporary regimes in the process of developing
democracy."
Despite the high number of coups in Thai history, there has not been a stable
and long-lasting military junta since 1973. The Democracy Monument, in the
center of Bangkok, built by an anti-monarchy military dictator, General
Pibun, in the 1930s, has come to symbolize the popular ideology of democracy,
and it means that the army could never pull it down, even in the 1960s and
1970s.
The military has always had a problem with trying to legitimize its actions
by quoting "democracy." Therefore, it has relied heavily upon using the
monarchy to shore up its legitimacy. The military always claims that it is
"protecting the monarchy" and that it is "serves the king and queen." We see
the generals in photo poses, supposedly taking orders from royalty.
Yet it is the generals who are really in charge of the palace. The palace
willingly cooperates in this arrangement, gaining much wealth and prestige.
Claiming legitimacy from the monarchy is a way to make the population afraid
of criticizing the army and the draconian lese majesty law is in place to
back this up.
"Nation, religion and monarchy" are the three pillars of the elite's
conservative ideology. Since the 1992 uprising against the military, they
have sometimes reluctantly added "the people" as a fourth afterthought.
However, the most important element in the three pillars ideology, as far as
the army is concerned, is the monarchy.
"Religion" is difficult to use as a coercive force due to the fact that not
all Thais are Buddhist and the version of Buddhism, designed by the elites in
the past, does not give any political power to the clergy. "Nation" might
seem to be a powerful symbol, and it is. Yet ever since the 1930s, there has
been an underlying tension between "nation" and "monarchy" because the former
implies a more collective idea, with collective interests, where as the
latter is concentrated in one single individual.
"Nation," in a more egalitarian concept, was also the ideology of the
People's Party in 1932, the Maoist Communist Party and many of the social
movements. That is why "monarchy" best serves the narrow and elitist
interests of the army.
We need to cut down the military's influence in society, reform the judiciary
and the police, and expand freedom and democracy. And we need to abolish the
monarchy, too. For in the minds of millions, the monarchy has now become an
obstacle to freedom and human dignity. Thais need to create a culture of
citizenship rather than being merely "royal subjects."
The Red Shirts have learned through struggle since the September 19, 2006,
coup, that "real democracy" will not just be achieved by mass demonstrations
or by winning repeated elections. Demonstrations have been put down by bloody
repression and election results have been repeatedly overturned by
unconstitutional means.
The pro-democracy movement has come to realize that our aims are being
blocked by powerful and entrenched interests, which have to be resisted by
strengthening the mass movement. This can be done by expanding the movement
into the organized working class and by political agitation among the
conscripts who make up the lower ranks of the military.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Published by the International Socialist Organization. Material on this Web
site is licensed by SocialistWorker.org, under a Creative Commons (by-nc-nd
3.0) license, except for articles that are republished with permission.
Readers are welcome to share and use material belonging to this site for
non-commercial purposes, as long as they are attributed to the author and
SocialistWorker.org.
