Thai polls reflect clash of values

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.