Opinions | Columnists
Not all military coups are bad
General Sonthi has justified his seizure of power in Thailand on the grounds that the Thaksin government was corrupt.
- By Abdullah Al Madani, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 00:00 September 24, 2006
In principle, any military coup against a democratically-elected government must be condemned. The experience of Third World countries suggests that coups have never helped establish better systems or put nations on the course of reforms and stability. On the contrary, they have always accompanied by bloodshed and caused additional problems, divisions and backwardness.
In Thailand, however, military coups looked different. Since 1932, the year in which Thailand became a constitutional monarchy, the country has witnessed 17 successful coups, all of which were bloodless with their leaders remaining loyal to King Bhumibol Adulyadej, retaining the monarchic system, and avoiding the prosecution of their predecessors. In several cases, coups took place as a way out of the mess created by elected civilian governments or as a prelude to introducing a better democratic system. This, according to many Thais, is applied to the recent military coup led by army commander General Sonthi Boonyaratklin that ousted caretaker prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra last week.
Sonthi and his colleagues promised to return power to the people as soon as possible, justifying their seizure of power and suspension of the country's 1997 constitution on the grounds that the Thaksin government had been corrupt, created "social division like never before", and undermined the independent checking and balancing institutions. Thailand's elite, urban-based upper and middle classes and various special-interest groups shared the same view regarding the Thaksin administration. They have long argued that his divide-and-rule style of governance and the use of his financial muscle to purchase popularity and votes in Thailand's rural provinces constituted a threat to democracy.
The king too seemed to have had similar views, given his prompt approval of the military move and earlier statements in which he had indirectly shown dissatisfaction with Thaksin's actions and ambitions.
Record majority
Thaksin, a business tycoon and ex-police officer, first came to power in 2001 when his Thai Rak Thai (Thais love Thais) party won the general elections that year. In the February 2005 elections, he won another term in office with a record majority and began what was described by opposition parties as efforts to install "a de facto one-party system in Thailand". Since then, Bangkok has witnessed massive anti-government street protests led by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and allegedly supported by elements close to the palace. Protests have gathered pace with the disclosure in February of the Thaksin family's controversial $1.9 billion tax-free sale of its 49 per cent holding in the Shin Corporation to Singapore's Temasek Holdings.
Protests against Thaksin were further galvanised by media reports claiming his disloyalty to the throne and his attempt to consolidate his power in anticipation of the post-Bhumibol era. The evidence given included his dismissal of royalist bureaucrats, wrangle with the Privy Council over military reshuffles and promotion of allies and loyalists to pivotal positions in the top brass. This eventually pressured Thaksin to declare snap elections in April, in which the opposition refused to participate. The poll results came again in his party's favour, but were annulled by the Constitutional Court because of irregularities.
Probably under the fear that Thaksin would emerge again as democratically elected leader in the new elections scheduled for November, and consequently Thai society would be further divided by his victory, the army, with covert support from the palace, decided to interfere and put an end to the crisis. Some analysts, however, argued that what encouraged Sonthi, a Muslim general known for his strong loyalty to the King, to move quickly were reports that Thaksin might use the alleged attempt on his life last month as a pretext to declare a state of emergency and stay in power through force rather than the ballot box.
Regardless of such arguments, the recent military coup has challenged the opinion that top brass no longer has a role in Thai politics. Many argued that since the 1992 bloody mass demonstrations that forced the ouster of the military government of General Suchinda Kraprayoon, the military has vowed to remain in its barracks.
The two major questions now are: Will the coup leaders keep their promise to return power to a new democratically-elected government by October 2007? And what kind of political reforms do they intend to introduce?
Based on past royally orchestrated extra-constitutional interventions, and bearing in mind that neither regional nor global situations encourages military rule, the answer to the first question could be Yes.
On the reform issue, a new constitution is expected to be written under the military and monarchy's watch with the aim of diluting the power of the government, limiting the size and power of political parties, and strengthening the independent checking and balancing institutions.
Dr Abdullah Al Madani is an academic researcher and lecturer on Asian affairs.
Share this article
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: World hunger
Who is responsible for world hunger? Are there any solution?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Parochialism versus India
The idea of India gets defeated if people are governed by domicile considerations
-
Between crime and insanity
Major Hassan's actions debase the universal parlance of the very faith that he professed to embrace so ardently
-
Its time for Karzai to show his mettle
He may have fallen out of favour, but for now there are no other leadership options
