September
29, 2006
Military
Coup in Thailand Triggers Reminiscences
The military
coup of September 19, 2006 in Thailand triggers
memories of a rewarding 2-1/2 years spent at Pakistan’s
embassy in that country, half a century back. It
was during that period that Pakistan’s army
staged its first coup d’etat in 1958. Comparisons
are thus inevitable between the patterns of political
power shifts from elected civilians to the men in
uniform of the two countries.
Thailand has witnessed some twenty military coups
since 1932 when a group of Western-educated young
men succeeded in grabbing power and putting an end
to absolute monarchy in favor of an elected democracy.
Pakistan cannot match the record of coup-prone Thailand,
but it too has come under martial law and military
rule four times and for almost half of the period
since its emergence as an independent state.
The latest coup in Thailand occurred after fifteen
years of civilian rule and three national elections.
It was generally felt that the history of military
intervention had ended in the country. But like
in Pakistan, the elected leader, Thaksin Shinawatra,
a billionaire business tycoon, was unwilling to
part with power. Greed has no end.
The coup followed months of demands for him to resign
amid allegations of corruption, election skullduggery
and a worsening Muslim insurgency in the southern
provinces of the country where they are in majority.
He had, however, built considerable following in
rural areas by launching projects for the poor of
the areas.
Premier Thaksin, a telecommunications tycoon turned
politician, had won three general elections since
coming to power in 2001 but tarnished with allegations
of riggings. Recently he alienated a segment of
the military by claiming that some senior officers
had tried to assassinate him in a foiled bombing
attempt. This was seen by the media as a drama to
gain sympathy of the voters. Then, he attempted
to remove officers loyal to the Commander-in-Chief,
Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin, from key positions.
Thailand has had no working legislature and only
a caretaker government since last February when
the Prime Minister dissolved the parliament promising
fresh elections.
Gen. Sondhi, 59, a Muslim in a vastly Buddhist country,
is known to be close to Thailand’s revered
constitutional and world’s longest serving
monarch. He was selected in 2005 to head the army
chiefly because it was felt that he could better
deal with the Muslim insurgency in Southern Thailand.
For, he advocated negotiations with the separatists
in contrast to Thaksin’s hard-fisted approach.
Over 1700 persons of the Muslim region died consequently
in the last couple of years only and without any
success at pacification.
A day after the coup, Gen. Sondhi announced that
he would act as Prime Minister, under the monarch,
Bhumibol Adulyadej, for two weeks till a new leader
is chosen by the Council of Administrative Reforms
that he heads and an interim constitution is drafted.
He promised elections for October, 2007.
What brought the fall of Thaksin from the seat of
power is what is keeping both Benazir and Nawaz
Sharif away from that seat. It is the inability
to accept a graceful exit. Being the chairperson
for life or head of a party indefinitely may block
the way for the emergence of a new leadership, but
it cannot erase their tarnished images. They would
be rendering a great national service by stepping
aside to let new faces assume leadership. Only the
inspirational leadership of visionaries with unquestionable
integrity may be able to send the army back to the
barracks.
No one upholds military rule, but the presence of
such tarnished leaders serves as an asset for the
ruler in uniform. They hardly provide a welcome
alternative.
The Thai middle class and city dwellers have hailed
the military takeover chiefly because of the miasma
of Thaksin’s corruption, reminding one of
a similar welcome according to the military coup
in Pakistan of October 1991. The Western democracies
and some Asian countries have understandably denounced
the coup. The US State Department called it a “step
backwards for democracy”, while the European
Union urged “the military forces to stand
back and give way to the democratically elected
government”.
The military takeover is unlikely to leave any scar
on the Thai polity. It may turn out to be just a
passing, corrective phase. History points out the
remarkable faculty of the Thai people to come to
terms with changing conditions both at home and
abroad. It was this flair for adaptability buttressed
with a strong sense of national unity, the aura
of sacredness surrounding the monarchy, the pervasive
influence of the Buddhist outlook, the spirit of
tolerance, the elitist structure of the society,
and the conjunction of merit and power that have
enabled the Thais to retain their independence even
in the most trying colonial times. Thailand means
the land of the free.
The Thais treat their traditions as sacred. Their
past is reflected in their present. Essentially,
the Thais constitute a hierarchical society. It
comprises those who fight (king, princes, nobles),
those who pray (men of religion), and those who
work. The military officers, the warrior caste,
claim a place in the first category on the basis
of, not birth, but ascendance and attainment.
Widespread modern education, revolutionary information
technologies and the demands of globalization, are
pressuring the hierarchical structure to make room
for meritocracy and social mobility – the
foundation of democracy. This has created tension
and put the Thais to test for finding a balance
between their faculty of adaptability and adherence
to traditional values. They have excelled in conflict
resolution and are likely to do so this time too.
A marked difference with the society in Pakistan
is in respect of education. Some 96% of men and
90% of women in a population of 62 million are literate.
Over 20% of the Thai budget is spent on education.
There is compulsory education throughout the nation
for children between the ages of 7 and 16 and free
schooling is allowed for 12 years. However, the
outmoded educational system encourages, like in
Pakistan, learning by rote instead of promoting
the spirit of enquiry.
Exceptional reverence is accorded to the king. I
had the advantage of watching him at close quarters.
He stuck meticulously to his role as the constitutional
head of state and seldom gave vent to his emotional
reaction to a situation. He is 78 now and has been
the king for 60 years. I used to move among media
men who are generally quite outspoken. But, not
even once I heard a critical word about him from
anyone.
He has lent his prestige, though in an unobtrusive
manner, to the army junta that has staged the coup.
And, that probably is their greatest asset, apart
from the litany of failures of the outgoing prime
minister.
arifhussaini@hotmail.com September 21, 2006
