PM Ouster and Airports Cleared Won't End Crisis, Bangkok Post Says

[Gaybutton]

The following appears in the BANGKOK POST:

_____

 

Pause in the Battle

 

By Achara Ashayagachat

 

Although it was much anticipated, the Constitution Court's verdict dissolving the three coalition parties is not likely to put an end to Thailand's protracted political crisis.

 

At best, it may provide a brief calm to the heated strife until parliament reconvenes next week for an extraordinary session to select a new prime minister.

 

Whether parliament is able to reconvene will depend on the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD).

 

The situation may explain the PAD's withdrawal from Government House, which it had illegally occupied for more than three months. Part of the move might have been strategic, as the PAD at the time wanted to beef up its demonstrations at Don Mueang and Suvarnabhumi airports. Part of it might have to do with its plan to vacate the seat of power for the new government it has been waiting for.

 

But will the PAD be able to have its way? After all, the People Power party still has enough MPs - 221, after 12 were banned from politics by yesterday's rulings - to form a new coalition and propose a new prime minister.

 

As for the PAD, even though it has given up on its siege of the airports, the damage it has done to the country's economy and image in the eyes of the international community will not be easily forgiven. It will have to be extremely careful about its next move.

 

So, what does the PAD ultimately want?

 

The PAD's demands seem to have a way of evolving along with the situation, although they are now repeating a call for an "impartial" government comprising of anyone - be they academics, business people, bureaucrats or politicians - except, of course, those from the Thaksin camp. The only way for them to achieve that is to prevent a new prime minister from being selected within the timeframe specified by the Constitution, thus triggering Section 7 of the charter under which certain rules may be suspended to break a crisis of electoral democracy.

 

Only through this clause can the "impartial" or "national reconciliation" government comprising non-elected people be set up.

 

Meanwhile, business people have proposed that a Democrat-led coalition be given a chance.

 

Some people may have felt relief after former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat seemed to show no resistance to the court verdict and looked ready to abandon the premiership immediately after it was read. It was a good gesture on his part, albeit a belated one. If the former PM had indeed been determined to halt the political conflict, he should have dissolved the House when it became clear that he could not deal with the airport siege.

 

The relief is likely to be short-lived, however, since in the end it is Mr Somchai's brother-in-law, the ousted premier and fugitive, Thaksin Shinawatra, who has been and will continue to be dictating the moves in this war game.

 

Thaksin knows that he has not yet lost. Much more could happen. And it is becoming clear that neither Thaksin nor his opponent the PAD cares how much damage their fight will cause the country.

 

Without the necessary number of MPs - unless there are some defections from the ruling PPP - the opposition Democrat party does not seem to have a decided gain from the parties' dissolution. It cannot form a new government anyway. And even if it could, the pro-PPP United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) would not let the party it sees as having done nothing, reap the windfall so easily. More protests will be in store.

 

Another problem is that after this spate of party dissolutions and removal of party executives' political rights, there are only a few qualified choices left with which to form a viable cabinet. Indeed, with the "leftover" personnel they now have, it does not look like the PPP will be able to come up with an impressive prime minister or cabinet.

 

In the final analysis, it does look like the crisis will go on in a vicious cycle. The new, incapable cabinet will again be rejected by the PAD and probably by the business people who are increasingly feeling the economic crunch and badly need a government which knows how to do its job well. Another lame-duck government would be the last thing they want.

 

Meanwhile, most politicians will not think of doing anything now, except how to get around and amend Section 237 of the Constitution to get rid of the party dissolution clause which has kept them chained and crippled.

 

The central question from now on is: will the PAD allow parliament to reconvene on Dec 8? If not, the group, which has already experienced protest fatigue, may face another backlash and see its support dwindle further.

 

Another factor that should not be underestimated is the presumably angry "red shirts", and the possibility that they might be joined by those who feel wronged by the PAD's actions, too. A coalition of the wounded is always a dangerous one. These people might be willing to fight against bullets with their bare hands.

[PattayaMale]

To me this is is a well written article but I think at some point Thailand has to move beyond the rhetoric and come to terms with corruption and nepotism which I believe is the main problem. One of the leaders of a disbanded party said that MPs' will have their wifes, children or relatives as proxies replace the disbanded MPs. Obviously these proxies may not be prepared to do the job.

 

How do you change this? Many times these problems are settled by revolution or civil strife. What other path can be taken?

[Guest fountainhall]

at some point Thailand has to move beyond the rhetoric and come to terms with corruption and nepotism which I believe is the main problem

 

This was the situation in Hong Kong in the early 1970's. Corruption was so rife at all levels of society that the government decided the only way to eradicate it was to set up a totally independent commission against corruption with no links to the police or the government. Anyone could contact the commission confidentially. Anyone accused of being corrupt was effectively guilty until proven innocent - i.e. it was up to the individual to prove that they were not in fact corrupt.

 

At a stroke, this weeded out a huge number of government officials and senior police who were 'on the take'. One fled to London but was eventually extradited back to Hong Kong to serve a very long jail sentence. The commission still exists and still weeds out corruption. The result is that Hong Kong has one of the most corrupt-free administrations anywhere in the world.