Thai polls reflect clash of values

By David Chew

SINGAPORE (JP): Thailand's general election Sunday looks set to be a slugging match where the free-for-all exchange of blows and trading of punches are likely to leave contesting political parties bruised, battered and exhausted.

Who among them will pick up the pieces to form the next government is anybody's guess, even as the electoral campaign picks up steam and proceeds to a climax in the carnival atmosphere that is presently sweeping the nation.

To a large extent, this state of affairs is a reflection of the clash of values between tradition and modernity in the political system at present. Thailand is a society steeped in Asian conservative tradition which is at the same time exposed to modern western influences.

But the element of unpredictability is unique, and distinguishes Thai general elections from polls in neighboring countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore where observers already know the winners even before the electoral results are announced.

About 2,300 candidates from 13 parties registered themselves in a five-day exercise last month for the keenly-contested polls. The main contestants are the Democrat Party (DP), the National Aspiration Party (NAP), the Chart Pattana Party (CPP), The Palang Dharma Party (PDP) and the Chart Thai Party (CTP).

The CTP led a multi-party coalition government after Thailand's last general election in July 1995, but its mandate ended when CTP leader Prime Minister Banharn Silpa Archa dissolved parliament on Sept. 27 to call for fresh elections in November.

The contesting parties will be locked in a "do or die" battle for the 393 parliamentary seats nationwide up for grabs. With 369 candidates vying for 37 seat making an average of 10 contestants for each constituency, the capital city of Bangkok can expect to see the most intense electoral fray.

As in the case of previous elections, no party will win more than 50 percent of the contested seats to emerge an overall winner with the right to govern alone. The next government, like the previous one, will thus have to be a coalition of several parties which can garner sufficient support to form a simple majority in parliament.

In the last general election, the CTP bagged 92 of the 391 contested seats, the largest among all the participants, which fell far short of a simple majority. The CTP had to seek out five other partners in forming a six-party coalition which commanded just 209 seat in order to rule.

The opposition strength of 182 seat is greatly split among several parties which have very little in common, except their common disagreement with the government. The DP which won 86 seats in the last general election cannot claim to speak for all parties in the opposition although it bagged the largest number of seats.

Thai analysts have attempted to explain this fractious, but interesting aspect of Thai politics which has attracted much media attention since a student-led popular uprising toppled the military regime of Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn in 1973.

That event is believed to have ushered in an active era for political parties although some like the DP have a longer history.

In his booklet Democracy in Thailand, Dr. Likhit Dhiravegin contends that the present state of bickering not only among political parties, but also between the parties and other institutions like the military and bureaucracy, reflects the transition of the Thai political system from an absolute monarchy to a democracy replete with Westminster-style trimmings.

According to Likhit, who is professor of political science in Bangkok's Thammasat University, this transition reflects the struggle between two conflicting forces which have become firmly entrenched in the Thai political system. They are the tradition of the past represented by the military and bureaucracy, and the modernity of the present represented by political parties, intellectuals and students.

For centuries the monarch wielded absolute power and the common people had virtually no political rights. But in the 19th century King Mongkut and his successor King Chulalongkorn, encouraged by the westernization of Asian countries such as Japan, instituted western-style reforms designed to bring Thailand to the modern age. But these reforms also made the people politically conscious.

Although political parties were seen as an integral part in the trend towards democracy when absolute monarchy ended in 1932, political power in fact fell to the military which relied on the bureaucracy to carry out its policies.

But the political parties have not taken this lying down, and have clamored for greater participation in the political system in the decades after 1932 where successive military regimes have been installed.

In their interaction over the years, the conflicting forces represented by the military on the one hand and the political parties on the other have combined and partly reconciled to form a "demi-democracy" or "half-way democracy", according to Likhit. But this accommodation has created many problems owing to the clash of values between the tradition and modernity which they represented.

While the military might have felt that allowing squabbling political parties, some of which have dubious aims, to proliferate could destabilize the nation, the latter on the other hand felt that too much power vested in the military would lead to a dictatorship and not a democracy.

On the same point, Sombat Raksakul, writing in the Sunday edition of the Bangkok Post, notes that Thai society is half- modern and half-feudal. He argues that it is modern enough for people to demand political rights, but feudal enough for many politicians to treat the government as a way of distributing patronage. This can lead to the malpractice of money politics and corruption.

Sombat contends that as Thai society develops, the balance is likely to swing and become more modern. Politicians thus see criticism of government policies as no more than their legitimate and democratic right to reform Thai society.

They have been encouraged by further reforms to their favor in the past decade such as the necessity for the premier to be an elected MP. Prior to that, the constitution allowed for a non- elected prime minister so long as he was accepted by the monarchy, military, bureaucracy and political parties. Chatichai Choonhavan became Thailand's popularly elected premier after his CTP won the 1988 general election.

The political parties score a great victory in 1992 when mass demonstrations forced military strongman Gen. Suchinda Kraprayoon to step down as premier after the military had deposed Chatichai the preceding year, citing grounds of corruption.

But more political parties competing for the same support among the people means that each participant will get a smaller portion of the pie. Which explains why no political party will ever win an outright majority to govern alone, making coalition governments a necessity in Thailand.

Unless a political party develops an ideology which can appeal to the masses, it can never hope to win even a simple majority in parliament to govern alone. Some leaders like former army supremo Gen. Chavalit Yongchaiyudh have toyed with the idea of forming a mass-based party having an absolute majority in parliament like UMNO in Malaysia, or Golkar in Indonesia. The rationale goes that such a strong government would presumably end the fractious nature of too many parties and guarantee political stability.

But analysts like Likhit have argued that this has not been possible because conditions which encourage the formation of mass-based parties with populist appeal are absent in Thailand. Sectional interests appear to prevail over a collective national interest, helped in part by the fact that Thailand was never colonized by the western powers. Such being the case, a force like nationalism, which could unite the people, had been absent.

Also virtually all Thai political parties tend to be run like businesses, making group lobbying very strong. Politics involves spending a lot of money which only businessmen can afford. They thus veer towards representing business interests although they may have intentions of appealing to as wide a cross-section of society as possible, such as businessmen, farmers, office workers or civil servants.

Despite the fractious nature of domestic politics manifested by a multiplicity of squabbling parties leading to frequent changes in government, the Thai political system has continued to show a marked resilience. It did not collapse in the past. It has not collapsed in the present, and it is unlikely to collapse in the future.

This is because the interaction among entrenched institutions like the bureaucracy, military and monarchy has guaranteed political stability in the country. Irrespective of which party is in power, the bureaucracy continues to function to ensure that government does not come to a stand still. The military is still considered one of the pillars of stability despite the growing resentment towards it by the political parties.

But perhaps the greatest stabilizing factor is the monarchy. Absolute monarchy may have been abolished in 1932, paving the way for the development of political parties. But King Bhumibhol continues to be revered, and in chaotic conditions created by political squabbling, the monarch steps in and all parties concerned accepts his decision.

The writer is a free-lance journalist based in Singapore.

Window: Despite the fraction nature of domestic politics manifested by a multiplicity of squabling parties leading to frequent changes in government, the Thai political system has continued to show marked resilience.