To use the Thailand riots as an example; the people want parliament disolved and Mr Thaksin (former PM) back in power after he was ousted after a corrupt election in which the opposition boycotted the polls.
The protesters "red shirts"began a huge revolt. As Karklins and Petersen identify in the reading, the process of revolting involves "two dynamics" the first being large frequent demonstrations, which the red shirts most definately have (one of the earlier protests had 25,000 protesters in the main protest site at Phan Fah Bridge) the second dynamic is to have the regime fragment and lose confidence leading to desolution. Unfortunately, this second dynamic is both very important and very difficult to have happen, in Thailand, the sheer fire-power of the elites in power has forced the protesters to step down in order to prevent further blood-shed; Protest leader Natawut Saikua said "we have done our best." Weng Tojirakarn said "we want to prevent further losses of our Red Shirt brothers and sisters."
This demonstates the point Karklins and Petersen make in saying that "regimes do not simply fall because citizen protests illustrate the regimes lack of legitimacy"
Is it impossible for a successful revolt in Thailand? obviously the government has alot more fight in them and violence doesn't faze them if it means keeping the power.
In the Romanian example Karklins and Petersen bring up "[their] regime's use of shoot to kill orders were unable to contain the rebellion" must the "red shirts" then stick it out, continue to revolt, lose more innocent lives, hope for more support and wait until they overwhelm the government?
No comments:
Post a Comment