EBP #2

EBP#2: From Illiberal Democracy to Military Authoritarianism: Intra-Elite Struggle and Mass-Based Conflict in Deeply Polarized Thailand, By Prajak Kongkirati

This research article, From Illiberal Democracy to Military Authoritarianism: Intra-Elite Struggle and Mass-Based Conflict in Deeply Polarized Thailand, written by Prajak Kongkirati aims to discuss the political turmoil and polarisation that is occurring in Thailand between the Yellow Shirts and traditional elites who want to restore and uphold the “Thai-style democracy” with royal nationalism, while the Red Shirts espouse the “populist democracy” and the power that the royal monarchy wields. Additionally, the author argues that the turmoil occurring is not just a simple class war between the upper and lower social classes of Thailand but factors such as the existing social cleavages such as; the clear class and economic system catered for the monarchal rule, urban-rural disparities and general disjointedness. 

In this article, Kongkirati analyses Thailands transition from a partial democracy to royally backed military authoritarianism. Furthermore, Kongkirati discusses the links between declining voter apathy coinciding with a rise in ‘Populist’ politics and populist candidates. Kongirati separates these events into 3 clear polarisation occurrences. As aforementioned, Kongkirati argues that the state of “ Thailands zero-sum politics” is not only about the struggle between opposing sides of the elite who are driven by state and economic interests and also by different notions about nationhood and political legitimacy. The ideological component to the “red shirt” and “yellow shirt” divide is particularly interesting as it is an amalgamation of people from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds which is unusual in similar cases of rises in populism (i.e Pro-Brexit supporters being primarily working-class etc). Furthermore, is it fair to dismiss the idea

Kongkirati attributes the rise in populism in Thailand to a variety of mitigating factors. A significant political factor at play was the 1997 constitution, entrenched in this constitution were more stringent mechanisms and rules that led the way to a reform of the electoral system. To inhibit the problems of party-dominated politics, the system of MMP was introduced. Additionally, after the 1997 economic crisis and the creation of the new constitution, Thaksin Shinawatra; a media-communications tycoon launched the TRT, which was the first true populist party to emerge out of the newly written constitution. In true populist fashion, Thkaksin’s real political intentions with the TRT was to win an absolute majority of votes and form a single-party government.

What I found particularly interesting was the crossover of capitalist ideas from Shinawatra’s business sphere to his desired political sphere. Kongikirati argues that Shinawatra wanted to have monopolistic control over the state by controlling all spheres of the state (i.e media, the executive). Furthermore, His campaign’s centred primarily on nationalist policies to rescue the business sector and populist policies to help the poor in both rural and urban areas. 

 As aforementioned, Kongkirati wants to expand the debate on how the divide in Thai politics was created.  The debate is divided into two main arguments—those who view the polarized conflict as a typical elite power struggle that began after the 1932  revolution and those who see it as a “revolt of the downtrodden.”(Kongkirati,2018). The “elite struggle” theory also fails to explain why middle-class people became so enthralled in policies that were aimed at the rural, poorer social cleavages. Furthermore, Thaksin’s policies and actions helped to illustrate the regional, urban-rural, and class cleavages that already existed in Thai culture long before he came to power. Policies such as the village fund, debt moratorium, and universal health care empowered the rural lower and lower-middle classes but made the urban middle and upper classes feel threatened and insecure. 

I found McCoy, Rahman and Somner’s argument on a possible another cause of polarisation quite compelling. Furthermore, they argue that it is a struggle between the elite and the masses. This would explain why the military-backed Royal elite was so eager to stop Thaksin in his tracks as quick as possible. Kongirati attributes the eventual coup d’etat in 2006 to both material and psychological aspects. Thaksin’s immense popularity and his dominant party challenged the power, interest, and prestige of the network monarchy, including the monarchy’s “claim to be the sole focus of political loyalty” (Phongpaichit and Baker 2009, 89). Moreover, with a succession crisis, and the crown prince being unpopular and uncharismatic but close to Thaksin, the network monarchy feared that Thaksin could assert strong influence over the royal monarchy in the next reign and manipulate the crown prince to do his bidding.

 Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, second from right, and army chief Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratglin, second from left, on Aug. 24, 2006, two weeks before Sonthi deposed Thaksin in a coup.

In terms of economic control, the CBP(Crown Property Bureau) is able to cement the royal family control. The CBP is one of the largest business conglomerates in Thailand, with assets worth some US$41 billion in 2005. I found it particularly interesting that the CBP is exempt from taxation and is basically accountable only to the royal family. This presents an interesting dichotomy as some would argue that Thailands royal family is just purely an authoritarian regime that has the facade of a constitutional monarchy. Furthermore, due to the extent of the royal family's wealth, they can step in and intervene whenever necessary whenever the power balance tips in another organisation or party's favour. 

In summary, I found certain parts of this research article filled with unnecessary jargon that made certain concepts harder to initially grasp. However, the article was separated into 3 distinct polarisation events that chronologically outlines the underlying and present issues that have caused the divide between Thailands Elite, and the masses.