The death toll in Bangkok’s latest round of violence reached 30 yesterday as the Thai army tightened its grip on a besieged band of pro-democracy protesters. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva explained to the nation Saturday that the crackdown was “necessary” and the government wouldn’t “retreat,” which suggests he’s willing to see more Thais killing Thais in the days to come.
However Mr. Abhisit tries to sell it, many Thais will see this as simply the crude reaction of an illegitimate government afraid of losing its power in competitive elections. Mr. Abhisit was elected only after a military-backed tribunal disbanded the main opposition party and barred its leaders from running for office. To his credit, he tried to assert his influence over the old guard in parliament, but he did little to dilute the military-written constitution that overrode the 1997 charter and gave enormous powers to the monarchy and unelected judiciary.
This stance enraged people living in rural areas in Thailand’s north and northeastern provinces. They last tasted democratic enfranchisement under Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra before he was deposed in a 2006 military coup. Thousands of people poured into Bangkok beginning early last year to support the so-called “red shirts” as they protested for democracy. Mr. Thaksin helped whip up the crowds via videoconference from self-imposed exile abroad. Many Bangkokians dismissed these protesters as rent-a-mobs, but they aren’t. Their numbers, still in the thousands in Bangkok even after days under siege, are too large.
Mr. Abhisit has had opportunities to move Thailand toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Last year, pragmatic red-shirt leaders like Veera Musikhapong and even army chief Anupong Paochinda advocated a political solution after small-scale clashes between the protesters and security forces. But the longer Mr. Abhisit waffled, the more red-shirt hardliners emerged. Last week they rejected the prime minister’s offer to hold early elections, which was the point of protesting in the first place. Mr. Veera has now reportedly left the red-shirt leadership.
Mr. Abhisit has now rescinded his offer of early elections. His government could come down even harder and quash dissent using Tiananmen-style methods. Or Mr. Abhisit could follow the examples of former leaders of South Korea and Taiwan, who gave up power in the hope of setting the country on a more sustainable, democratic path. One of the red-shirt leaders, Nattawut Saikua, gave him that option yesterday when he said the red shirts would negotiate if the prime minister ordered a cease-fire and withdrew troops. Government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn rejected that offer, saying the army is only shooting “terrorists.”
Stopping the shooting to ensure a short-term peace should be an easy decision for Mr. Abhisit to take. Giving into demands for a truly democratic election would be harder, given that Mr. Thaksin’s supporters would likely win any election. But it would be in keeping with the gradual political progress Thailand has made over the past century, moving from absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, military-led government, and then to a democracy backed by the military and the monarchy. The trend is toward more freedom, not less.
One complication now is that Thailand doesn’t have its traditional monarchical safety net in place. King Bhumibol Adulyadej is in poor health and has not stepped in to force a political compromise. That means Thailand’s political leaders and its people have to come to their own consensus. For the sake of the civilians dying in the streets, that should happen as soon as possible.
