Thailand’s Political Stalemate: No End in Sight?

Thailand’s political conflicts recommenced on May 26th, 2008, with PAD’s opposition to the Constitutional amendments of PPP, and then with governmental administration issues of concern to the nation; notably an agreement with Cambodia over Preah Vihear temple, government officials shuffled for political benefit, and the construction of new parliament buildings with the inconsiderate eviction of students and local residents. These events led to the expulsion of Samak’s government through the seizure of Government House on August 26th, 2008, which prevented the daily work of government. In addition, strikes took place at airports, railway stations, and at Klong Toey port, affecting normal conditions for Thai society and the economy.

The past four months had already been marked by social and political tension on account of Prime Minister Samak’s attitude and also that of his government. They strongly opposed PAD and refused to negotiate with PAD’s five leaders. PAD’s belief in Samak’s government as nominee powers of the Thaksin regime had led to their outcry for Samak’s sacking and his government’s fall. But the government was supported by the United Front for Democracy against the Dictatorship of Thailand (UDDT), a group in conflict with PAD. On September 2nd, 2008, a clash between these two groups resulted in the death of one person and the injury of many more. Thus a state of emergency was declared in Bangkok by Samak’s government.

At this time, Thai politics is clearly split down the middle between a UDDT supported government, and PAD on the other side. While the two sides confront each other, the majority of people do not take sides and cannot help feeling uncomfortable and tense as “the way out” for the country is unknown and neither side shows any sign of negotiation.

The Constitutional Court, however, came to the verdict that due to a television cooking programme hosted by Former Prime Minister Samak Soondharavej during his time in office, he did not qualify to be Thailand’s Prime Minister. Thus, he left office immediately and with the election by the House of Representatives of Mr Somchai Wongsawat as the new Prime Minister, the political atmosphere was relieved immediately. The new Prime Minister’s gentle, non-aggressive and biddable character drew PAD leaders into negotiation immediately after he became Prime Minister.

PAD’s proposal, on the other hand, is for “new politics” to forge “the way out” for the country, since politicians always come from rich families or from investors who seek power and political benefits. PAD’s proposal is that politicians be selected by two styles of election; firstly, selection from electoral areas, and secondly, from a variety of career positions. This would then prevent investors from dominating in both legislative and administrative domains.

Until now, PAD’s proposal for a new style of politics in Thailand has received very interesting attention from the public especially the proposal that candidates from a variety of careers be elected by the people for legislative or administrative tasks.

The question is whether politicians and authorized law amenders will agree to this or not. If they do agree, electoral area politicians will be far fewer, thus affecting the status of politicians at present. If there is no agreement or negotiation with PAD in their new politics proposal, PAD will continue their rally at Government House and will not cease to oppose Somchai’s Government, which will affect Thailand’s economy and society across the long term.

The best thing at present is negotiation between the Government and PAD, reducing the level of aggression, while remaining committed to each group’s proposed ideas. Every sector of society should be open to brainstorm and find a model for politics and society providing a good “way out” for now.

Dr Kriengsak Chareonwongsak
Senior Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School , Harvard University
kriengsak@kriengsak.com, kriengsak.com, drdancando.com