The Thai Conundrum: A Ponderus Plaid Post.

Over the past week since the military has forced the Red Shirt protesters out of Bangkok, Thailand has quickly evaporated from the headlines of Western English language newspapers. After the exodus of the Reds, the headlines seemed to create a succinct, pleasant wrap-up for the Thai crisis that had dominated the international news for the 6 weeks prior. The restoration of "order" was nigh, and most importantly, the capital city was "open for business" again. While the resistance has been quashed for the time being, I doubt that any sort of order will neatly take its place; Thai politics is not a paint-by-number democracy.

There are thousands of blogs dissecting and speculating on the political situation in Thailand, and I doubt I have any unique or innovative perspectives to add, but a couple folks have asked me to post so here it goes.

For those of you who don't know what has been going on, I will humbly do my best to outline what happened (based on the blogs, news sites, and papers I've been reading, as well as conversations I have had with people studying Thailand here in Madison). About two months ago, thousands of protesters entered the city, taking hold of key locations, such as Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's residence, and later moving their camp to a major commercial district in the city, forcing businesses to temporarily close. While the shutting up of business has been used as an argument against the Reds' "invasion", a friend of mine from Bangkok informed me that so much of Thailand's economy is generated by agriculture that such a short cease in business would not have a lasting effect on the country. Anyway, the commonly articulated cause of the Red Shirts was for the immediate dissolution of Parliament, and for Abhisit to step down as PM. They wanted new elections. Immediately.

The word on why they demanded Parliament dissolution and for Abhisit's resignation is that Abhisit was not a democratically elected PM. Thaksin Shinawatra, the billionaire PM who was ousted in a military coup in 2006 (while I was still living in Lampang), was commonly seen as the champion of Thailand's rural poor-- a man of the people, despite his obscene personal wealth and his slightly unscrupulous habit of vote-buying. Nonetheless he is generally viewed by rural populations as a democratically elected leader, while Abhisit came to power not through votes but amidst the chaos of the 2008 airport blockade in Bangkok. Even though Thaksin had been deposed, his party, Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thais), was re-elected in 2008, but the party was soon outlawed on charges of electoral fraud. Abhisit and the Democratic Party took hold.

Back to the future of Spring, 2010, the Red Shirts call for fair and democratic elections in which their interests will be expressed and hopefully addressed once more. Abhisit represents, in the eyes of many, the interests of the urban elite to which he was born.

While many people claim that Thaksin is the "puppet master" of the Red Shirts, pulling strings and calling shots from Dubai or Montenegro, I am not so sure. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that 1000s of people would put their and their families' lives at risk every day for two months for one man who won't even physically enter the country. In other words, the Red Shirts have no martyr situation.

What I do believe is that the Red Shirts represent groups of people who have felt systematically neglected for decades, with the exception of the five years Thaksin was PM. While most Thai leaders, including Abhisit, have traditionally not spent time in Isan (ruraly Northeast region of Thailand) except for brief day trips during elections, Thaksin actually went on a tour there, spent weeks on the road traveling from province to province, even camping out in the countryside.

While of course this effort could be seen as a mere token to gain votes (a la Obama changing his accent or manner of speech depending on the audience at hand), the time he spent there does have symbolic value. Thaksin also established programs that specifically addressed the concerns of Thailand's rural population, rather than containing his focus to Bangkok and Central Thailand.

The Yellow (and sometimes Pink) Shirts who have protested against the Red Shirt protesters, then, supposedly represent Abhisit, the Democratic Party, and the King. Abhisit has campaigned in the past for "clean" politics, in contrast to the rampant corruption of Thaksin's regime. One could also say that they represent the interests of the elite, the wealthy, and the intellectual, although there are some upper class urbanites who have joined and supported the Reds.

Hence, the conflict is not only political, but social; many people in Bangkok think that the Reds are too uneducated and naive to have legitimate political opinions. This is a deeply rooted sentiment, and the recent crisis has once again brought it to the fore.

An extreme but telling manifestation of inter-class resentment was highlighted by a photo taken at a Pink Shirt rally.* In the photo, a red shirt has been hung from a tree bearing the word "enough"-- a threatening sign of some people's intolerance and hate towards the protesters. The photo is especially disturbing because it deliberately alludes to the disastrous student protest of 1976, in which dozens of peaceful protesters were gruesomely tortured, beaten, and killed by the military. To even suggest this as a possible way to "deal with" the Reds reveals a complicated, festering resentment towards those challenging the political dominance of Central Thailand and the current leadership.

So back to the more...mechanical (?) aspects of the protest. Of course, the political and the societal are inherently entwined. In many ways, the Thai situation is similar to what occurs in many other governments. We in the USA certainly have populations that have been and still are disenfranchised. We have opened and closed polling stations according to the availability of the people whose votes we most value, and gone on to elect officials whose culture, opinions, and way of life is viewed as the most legitimate in our society (whether or not they truly represent the interests of the majority).

In Thailand, however, there is an added dimension to the Thai political system. This dimension is the monarchy, or more specifically, the irreproachable King Bhumipol. I will not discuss the King as a person, or what he has done as a leader and benefactor here, but rather as a symbol. In the present crisis and those of past decades, the King has been used as a basis for morality and a justification for the actions of all parties involved. The Red Shirts plea to him , casting King Bhumipol as the "Father" whose permission or approval they need in order to carry out their agenda. The Yellows say that the Reds are undoubtedly the anti-King, trashing His city, wreaking havoc and division in the nation, a nation which should remain united under a commonly revered, benevolent King.

A sense of urgency, of frantic exigence, is added when you consider that King Bhumipol's reign is coming to a swift end, and the existence of a worthy successor is unclear.

Another interesting, though less important, element to the situation that I have observed is the foreign expats' commentary on the crisis. I don't understand how so many foreigners can be so opinionated regarding the current political situation. Most seem to side with the government, posting Facebook status updates that aggressively pushed for the Red Shirts to get out of Bangkok, as if Isan farmers are the "germs in the pure Thai body".

Perhaps they are mimicking the beliefs of their Thai friends or significant others. I think it has to do with trying to internalize "Thainess," or as my anthropologist friend would say, "an attempt to go local." Whatever the motivation, the online discussions existing between foreigners just don't seem to resonate with sincerity. Most expats in Thailand have the convenience of leaving the country at any point. Thais are left to face any violence or political/societal/economic backlash that might occur. We foreigners simply don't have as much at stake.

I am not at all saying that foreigners don't have the right to political opinions, or should not think critically about Thai politics. I am saying that expats should think very critically--about the logistics of the politics, but also about their situation relative to that of Thais. Particularly when so many lives have been put at stake. And lost.

Personally, I've witnessed and heard about a lot of dialogue that seems to only perpetuate hate, and further bury the existing class tensions. I don't want to play any part in widening that rift. I want to understand.

So I am not sure regarding my own stance, and I am okay with my own, unimportant uncertainty. I am a Plaid Shirt. What happened in Bangkok is multi-faceted; it cannot be looked at as merely "Rural Impoverished vs. Urban Elite" or "Invaders vs. King" or "Hillbilly vs. Master's Degree" or "Honesty vs. Corruption." Friends keep asking me, "So who are the bad guys again?" and I never have an answer, because I have too many questions that need an answer before I could ever make such a sweeping judgment.

While I realize that stances must be taken in order to ensure immediate safety for the population and the continuance of business and government operations, I also think that this issue must be analyzed from as many standpoints as possible before moving on to business as usual. Clearly, a sustainable solution for the conundrum that is Thai democracy is needed. Unfortunately, I am just not sure that the events of the past two months will receive the critical analysis from Abhisit and the current administration that is needed.

*This photo was brought to my attention during a seminar with Prof. Thongchai Winichakul in Madison.