The current conflict and succession

PPT readers will be interested in the article by long-time Thailand watcher W. Scott Thompson and colleague Oliver Geronilla in The Korean Times. The article claims a kind of mislabeling of the current political conflict and seeks to correct this view. There is much to disagree with.

It says that the “last six months” of “urban warfare and sullen politics” has “conveniently seen as a play-out of two sets of forces with distinct labels, even colors. The ‘Yellow Shirts’ have represented the rich Bangkok elite and the long revered king, Bhumipol; the ‘Red Shirts’ were stand-ins for the ousted premier, Thaksin Shinawatra, a populist politician who built a base on the backs of programs for the poor concentrated in Isan, the Northeast region that has historically been the least developed.”

They say this is “worse than simplification; it’s a distortion of what has been occurring.” They see the rise of Thaksin as unleashing “forces that would take the decade to put down.” Putting them down, PPT would add, has been the task of the royalist old guard, protecting itself and the rest of the elite.

They claim that the Red Shirts “have as their banner the growing inequality between Bangkok and Isan” rather than a focus on Thaksin, while the “Yellow Shirts are less about the monarchy and the privileges the elite enjoys in the city.”

Both claims are as shallow as the claims the authors think they are breaking down. Yes, the red shirts are about inequality, but in far broader terms than suggested here – they are about inequality of wealth, political and economic opportunity, double standards, the amart,and so on, and not just in the Northeast. It should not be forgotten that Thaksin’s support in 2005 was widespread, with the exception of the south. The yellow shirts are about monarchy and elite, and the shibboleths of old, right-wing and hierarchical Thailand.

The authors also claim that the current political dispute is not about “the division between military and civilian, a distinction barely visible in the Thai historical consciousness.” We’re not certain which histories they read, but this distinction is certainly one of the most most critical divisions that has driven social and political conflict in Thailand.

But then they get to what seems like the point of the article: “But in some ways the essence of Thailand hasn’t changed. A new army commander ― traditionally the ultimate source of power in the kingdom ― General Chayuth Chan-ocha ― has risen in the ranks faster than anyone in living memory. He has made clear that he will protect the monarchy, which undoubtedly means that he will protect the transition to the wildly unpopular crown prince…”. The authors then add: “The problem for Prayuth is that in ‘drawing a line in the sand’ around the monarchy … the general could bring down the house ― the house of Chakri, the ruling dynasty…. His enemies are too legion even for as powerful a man as Prayuth to protect him from them. The biggest problems of Thailand have perhaps only been postponed.”

PPT agrees that succession is an issue, but we remain uncertain that the current regime of civilian and military royalists is simply about managing succession. We think the conflict is far broader than than that. Think 1932-3, 1957-58, 1973-76, 1991-2 and 2000-2010, and it is clear that royalism is important but as an element of the establishment and maintenance of a conservative and hierarchical status quo as economic and political power has moved to rely on capitalist models.

Advertisement