It was 8 pm on July 3, and Thailand’s much-anticipated Election Day was long since over. Yingluck Shinawatra stood confidently in front of hundred of reporters at the headquarters of her Puea Thai (For Thais) Party.
Dressed not in red, but in monochrome, a white shirt and black jacket, she thanked her diehard fans for their unfailing support throughout the election campaign. It seemed clear then, even before the official announcement of the results, that Puea Thai had won an absolute majority in one of the closely fought elections in Thailand’s modern history. As was later revealed, Puea Thai secured 265 out of the 500 parliamentary seats. Meanwhile, the ruling Democrat Party, led by Oxfordeducated Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, managed to only secure a disappointing 160 seats, compelling it to take up the role of opposition in a new political game that will see the first-ever female prime minister of Thailand. In an ironic twist of Thai politics, the party which was accused by the Bangkok elite of masterminding the arson attacks against public property in May 2010 emerged as undisputed winner. And the party that had been endorsed by the Thai military and royalist elements suffered a humiliating loss.
On June 14, the ultra-royalist Army chief, Gen. Prayuth Chan-Ocha, appeared on national television, urging Thais not to vote for Puea Thai, which he believed only acted as the political instrument of Yingluck’s older brother, the former prime minister-turnedfugitive Thaksin Shinawatra. “Voters should use their good judgment to choose the best candidates to run the country efficiently,” Gen. Prayuth said. “If you allow the election results to be the same as before, you will not get anything new and you will not see any improvement from this election.” And, he added: “The people have to do their bit to help protect the monarchy. The military has to talk about this issue not because we are the only ones who are loyal to the King. We have to safeguard the institution that has made such a contribution to the country.” Prayuth’s blatant intervention in politics proved to be devastatingly counterproductive.
It suggested that the military was neither ready nor willing to withdraw itself from politics should Puea Thai win the election. It also signaled a deep sense of anxiety among members of the military and the traditional elite over a likely election victory by the pro-Thaksin camp. Apart of his final strategy, Prayuth once again politicized the royal institution, even when he previously forbade all sides of the political divide from bringing the muchrevered monarchy into the political fray. Is Prayuth a hypocrite or just a desperate general who insisted on preserving his position of power despite the fact that the political landscape has changed?
Prayuth’s behavior is explainable. He understood that the Thaksin clan’s return to power could mean diminishing political power for the military. Prayuth was also aware of the possibility that Puea Thai could take revenge against him and the Army. In the brutal crackdowns in Bangkok in May 2010, 91 people were killed and more than 2,000 injured. The Red Shirt movement, a key ally of Puea Thai, has long called for justice for the victims of this state-endorsed violence.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun is a fellow at the Singapore Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. The views expressed here are his own.
Please download the full article here
A Note to Readers : The views expressed in articles are solely those of the authors and not necessarily those of Strategic Review’s employees or shareholders. While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure its accuracy, neither Strategic Review, its partners nor any contributor accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy of any part of the content of this publication. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechani- cal, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission.
