Aus einem anderen Forum dazu. Fand ich ganz interessant:
Rhombous posted:
that's a recent development, really. thailand's had 18 coups/constitutions since 1932 (end of absolute monarchy), up until recently the people weren't really involved, it was elites fighting over the spoils of corrupt governance. things looked promising post-1992 (middle class initially supported a military coup to remove corrupt civilian government, turned on it when it became obvious military was going to try and keep control) and again in 1997 with the "people's constitution". previous thai constitutions were basically just tools to legitimate the previous coup leaders, wheras the '97 one was drawn up by a committee with public input. prior to '97 there wasn't really national-level politics per se, it was basically local personalities campaigning on personality (and buying votes through local political machines) rather than issues. the 1997 consitution created incentives for bigger, cohesive, national-level parties as well as a number of independent bodies (election commission, anti-corruption commission, national judiciary) designed to curb corruption.
thaksin shinawatra amassed a huge fortune in telecoms and after some unsuccessful forays into politics in the 90's formed the thai rak thai ("thai love thai") party, campaigning on promises of a debt moratorium for farmers, 30-baht (less than one dollar) universal healthcare, and a one-million baht per village development fund. the then-dominant democrat party's standing had been hurt by the shitty imf rescue plan's performance, and thaksin's populist agenda appealed to the rural poor that make up the majority of thailand's population. thai rak thai won with the largest margin in the history of thai politics and set up a coalition; this was later consolidated into a straight-up thai rak thai majority.
in power he actually followed through on all 3 promises. the poverty rate fell by half from 2000-2005 (how much of this was due to his administration and how much was due to things set in motion by the previous one is a subject of debate) from 22% to 11%. he finished his full term as prime minister (first in thai history) and was re-elected by an even bigger margin.
along the way he sold his telecom company to china and through a loophole paid no tax on it, which incensed the city-dwelling middle class. he also undermined the judiciary and other independent organizations by packing them with trt partisans, and loudly criticizing their roles in public. he was quick to conflate attacks on his administration with attacks on the nation, and publically talked about wanting to model thailand after authoritarian, developmental states like singapore and malaysia. he started a crackdown on drug traffickers that resulted in an estimated 2,000-3,000 extrajudicial killings (this was popular with a large number of people). he also appointed family members and former academy classmates (he was a police lt colonel before going in to telecoms) to positions of power in the military and police, 38 in all. none of them were overt replacements of the top brass, but rather quietly moving his clique into the number two positions, where they were scheduled to succeed to the top within a couple of years. thaksin also exacerbated the problems in the south (borders with malaysia, the southernmost 4 provinces are muslim, speak a different language, and want independence), both in an attempt to solve a long-term (yet low-intensity) conflict and less obviously, to stick it to the monarchy/democrat party. the south is the one area where thai rak thai was consistently defeated, and has historically been strong supporters of the democrat party, which itself has ties with the palace. the palace eventually had to make a direct, public declaration to thaksin to the order of "cut it out".
the king is highly revered by most thais. this is mostly due to a persistent and effective PR/propaganda campaign since the 1950's (lots of public works projects for the poor, plenty of coverage of him going to the countryside and helping people, etc). to be sure there'd always been a king, but the monarchy's popularity varied and by and large had little impact on commoners in the countryside. the present king wasn't really supposed to wind up the king at all, due to a bunch of succession-related stuff that's definitely not interesting enough to include his older brother wound up with it, and was found mysteriously shot to death not too long after being coronated. current king went back and forth with military dictator, too weak to oust him but supporting a coup by another general named sarit. he and sarit became close, and they basically formed a symbiotic relationship where sarit did a lot to restore the prestige/prominence of the monarchy (3 pillars of thai nationalism: nation, religion, king), and the king in turn supported sarit. king was also instrumental in the anti-communist movement. the palace is seen as above corruption and the king will admonish thailand's corrupt politicians in public speeches from time to time. there are lese magiste laws on the books that prohibit insulting the monarchy/royal family, they got youtube banned for a while and a number of people thrown in jail. foreigners are usually convicted and then pardoned by the king.
the palace's role in politics is legally nonexistent, but it obviously exercises a significant amount of power behind the scenes. a coup in '81 succeeded in taking bangkok, the coup leaders asked for the king's blessing (he'd evacuated to a palace out of town, where the prime minister met him) which he refused to grant, causing it to collapse within 3 days. in 1991 after riots and a resulting crackdown by the junta shook bangkok, the king summoned both the junta leader and leader of the dissidents, publicly scolding them on a televised broadcast. both of them stepped down and the violence was ended. the palace is by and large not inherently committed to democracy despite what yellow shirts might tell you: it's generally conservative and elitist.
the palace is largely responsible for the 2006 coup: thaksin's clique was beginning to make serious inroads into the entrenched interests of the "network monarchy", and it was this reason more than any other that his government was ousted after 14 years of a coup-free political system in thailand (up until around early 2006 it seemed like the consensus among most political scientists was that thailand had finally put coups behind it). the middle class were mobilized against the corruption (telecom sale, cronyism), abuse of the constitution (erosion of independent agencies/free press, extradjudicial killings), and perceived public challenges against the monarchy. the first two are nothing new in thai politics, the third was ultimately his undoing.
really if you take out the monarchy thai politics isn't anything particularly special; just another developing country racked by instability due to crappy governance and flimsy application of rule of law. because of the widespread support of the monarchy it is able to wield a great deal of indirect, extra-constitutional power, which allows it to act as a stabilizing agent and has kept the country from if not collapsing at least from devolving in to wide-scale unrest or a minor civil war. the son set to succeed him is not as popular (3 marriages, lots of other rumors not really worth repeating) and what will happen when the next crisis hits and the present king isn't around is anyone's guess.
[writin' my thesis on this, almost done]
