After 80 years, it's time to rethink the past, present and future

The current political dispute is unique in Thai history because it is coming from the grassroots level and not the elite as in the past

On June 24, 1932, a group of junior military officers and civil servants calling themselves Khanarassadorn (citizen's group) staged a coup to seize power from the absolute monarch and turn the country into a democracy with a constitutional monarch as head of state, noted Post Today.

Khanarassadorn's manifesto was:

1. Maintain political, judicial and economic independence.

2. Maintain internal security with the aim of reducing crime.

3. Raise economic prosperity. The new government will find jobs for every citizen, draw up national economic plans, not allow citizens to be impoverished.

4. Citizens have equal rights.

5. Citizens must have rights and freedom as long as they do not infringe on the aforementioned four principles.

6. Provide comprehensive education for citizens.

Throughout its 80-year history, Thai democracy has undergone profound changes ranging from military dictatorships, fig leaf democracy, full-blown democracy and capitalist democracy. There have been bloody clashes resulting in many deaths and thousands of injuries. Still, many wonder if Thailand has achieved a fully fledged democracy.

To shed light on this question, Post Today interviewed Charnvit Kasetsiri, former rector of Thammasat University and a renowned historian.

Dr Charnvit explained that throughout the past 80 years, conservative forces have retained a lot of their influence, making democracy unstable. It is more like "transient democracy", not a permanent one as long as citizens' rights and equality are not achieved concretely.

"Even though more than 10 constitutions including the present one guaranteed citizens' rights, it is meaningless when there is still talk about double standards, prai and ammart, which means that there is a problem of equal treatment. Whether such disputes are called a class struggle depends on a person's perspective, but I see the conflicts intensifying," Dr Charnvit said.

To dissect the differences of internal conflicts, Dr Charnvit explained that it was not as strong as in the past because if was confined to the elite. The present political conflicts are at the grassroots level, causing widespread political unrest.

"The present political conflicts are unprecedented, much more than the civil war during the Bovorndej failed coup in 1933.

"That was a civil war as it was fought right in the heart of the city, but it was a fight between armed forces belonging to the failed coup leader and those of the government. Most people were just observers, not involved.

"But the present situation is more dangerous as it affects the entire fabric of society," Dr Charnvit noted.

After 80 years, what kind of democracy does Thailand have? Dr Charnvit said it was a democracy for the elite, especially for those who still retain "old power" and influence. This could be easily seen by the tax regime. Thailand has not adopted a progressive tax system.

"If you look at a mature democratic country in western Europe such as Britain, you will see a highly progressive tax regime. In Thailand, if you are born into the hi-so class, you can inherit wealth without doing anything.

"Wealth is still concentrated among the higher classes in Bangkok as revealed in a study conducted by Prof Pasuk Phongpaichit. If people accept their station in life, the status quo can be maintained. But people don't accept their fate anymore."

Dr Charnvit explained that quite a few studies, especially those involving the red shirts, reveal the mistaken belief that the rural poor are uneducated and unknowing of the outside world.

But the fact is, internet cafes can be found everywhere, even in remote villages where there are no paved roads. The rural poor are not without resources or knowledge and they no longer accept injustice.

"It's a new world, but many people still cling to the old ways."

If Thailand is not a democracy, what is it? Dr Charnvit said Ajarn Pridi's definition of "Constitutional Monarchy" still applies.

"Initially, Khanarassadorn wanted to adopt the phrase 'Monarchy under Constitution', but acceded to King Prachadhiphok's wish for 'Constitutional Monarchy'. It was changed after Field Marshall Sarit Thanarat's 1947 coup with the emergence of 'Thai-style democracy' and 'Democracy with the Monarch as head of state'. It has been a long struggle, lasting 80 years, and Thai democracy is now at the crossroads."

Where do the crossroads lead? That is for the Thai people to answer, whether they believe in the absolute power of the monarch, the so-called "Devaraja" as practised in Ayutthaya and the first half of the Chakri dynasty or the democratic principles espoused by Khanarassadorn who toppled the monarch in 1932.

Two issues must be overcome. The first is to amend the constitution resulting from the 2006 coup as it is not acceptable to many people. The second issue is amending the lese majeste law.

If the problem is about inequality, why can't political parties solve it? Dr Charnvit said politicians are not the people's representatives - they represent their own social class. The class that Yingluck and Thaksin Shinawatra belongs to is no different from that of Abhisit Vejjajiva or Korn Chatikavanij.

"I think the elites are compromising, otherwise there would not be an attempt to push for a national reconciliation bill. But I do not think the grass roots will compromise."

So in the long run is it possible that the red shirts will defect from Thaksin's camp? Dr Charnvit thought it likely when the red shirts realise that Thaksin's group is not theirs.

"Political parties talk very little about structural reform. In the long run, whatever colour the grass roots are they are not stupid as they can receive all the news and information."

Dr Charnvit stressed that structural reform entails many issues to overcome. Pheu Thai and Thaksin will not undertake the task because it is long term. They care only about votes and political survival.

"The 1932 coup demonstrated that power belongs to the people. The rule of law is sacred, not a personality."

Dr Charnvit said since the time of Field Marshall Sarit, the monarchy has been used as a tool to discredit and destroy political opponents, starting from communism and now the attempt to amend Section 112. Those who advocate change were and are lumped together as disloyal to the monarchy.

The problem stems from the fact that the monarchy is very influential in the minds of ordinary Thais. So it is very convenient to use it as a tool. Why? There are no more issues of communism or colonialism. This leaves only the monarchy as a tool to destroy the opposition.

"I insist that this is dangerous. Those who profess blind loyalty without wisdom will be the ones who destroy the monarchy without realising it. If we want to preserve the monarchy on a solid footing, we must reform Section 112 so that it cannot be abused.

"Those modern countries with solid monarchies such as Britain and some western European countries do have lese majeste laws, but they are not vigorously enforced as we are doing right now. We fail to see that this law is harmful towards the monarchy.

"Many elites sincerely believe that if this law is preserved, it will protect the institution. Yet, some elites think that this law is dangerous but dare not speak out. I think respected figures such as Anand Panyarachun and Dr Prawase Wasi should take up this issue to prevent problems in the future."

Dr Charnvit said it was time for those who want to preserve and strengthen the monarchy along with democracy to do something about Section 112. They must look at both sides of the coin.

"The majority of our elites see only today and the good old days, living today's existence without caring about the future. The accumulated problem right now is that they dare not think beyond today."

Dipetik dari - Bangkok Post