Suthep's failure will test the fairness of the courts.
From the proclamation of the uprising of "The Great Mass of the People," who swarmed like worker ants all over Bangkok, to the shrinking gatherings in Lumpini Park now the size of a schoolyard, the "People's Democratic Reform Committee" ( the PDRC), just a shadow of his old self.
Like the yellow shirts movement in recent years, the essential organs are slowly failing, waiting to die an honorable death. The hard core of the PDRC, defiant as ever, refuses to admit defeat. That's for sure. Only those with a good dose of denial can convince themselves that the PDRC has won a major victory. But why did the PDRC fail?
First, the PDRC has failed to achieve its main goal of liberating the country from the barely defined 'Thaksin regime'. If outgoing Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, her MPs and the Pheu Thai Party are to be wiped out or dissolved, as were previous Thaksin-backed governments, then this task will have to be completed by the courts, the Anti-Corruption Commission or the power behind the fencing, the military.
It is now up to these three supposedly independent and impartial institutions to enter the battlefield alone. What these three institutions will decide in the coming months will, in my opinion, determine Thailand's fate in the years to come. The PDRC is no longer part of this playing field and has been reduced to noisy neighbours.
Second, protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban's delusions of grandeur have made the PDRC overplay its hand, as a newbie, drunk on free booze and bright lights, thinks he can beat the casino by betting higher and higher.
Many people, including myself, saw the hypocrisy and indeed the illegality of Pheu Thai's attempt to pass the Comprehensive Amnesty Bill.
Suthep hijacked the anti-amnesty protests, rode the waves and turned the protests into an insurgency aimed solely at dismantling the political influence of Thaksin Shinawatra, the Democrats' arch-rival.
At one point, the PDRC was able to claim victory when the government was brought to its knees by 'relatively' peaceful demonstrations. Then Suthep should have cried victory and pushed the government into a reform program that would benefit us all. But unfortunately Suthep made the same mistake that strong politicians like Magaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Thaksin also made: not being able to say goodbye in time.
Third, there is the dangerous and erroneous belief that the end justifies the means, which is largely responsible for its downfall. This misguided notion shows the world how hypocritical and illegitimate our system has become.
Let's be honest. These demonstrations turned out to be far from peaceful. It wasn't like Martin Luther King's march to Washington for more civil rights. King's bodyguards were not armed with grenades and machine guns. King's speech on that sunny August day in 1963 was quite different from the vicious shouting on the podiums here. Martin Luther King talked about reconciliation, not revenge. Justice for all and not just for the few. To rule by the law and not the law of government. But most importantly, he gave people hope, not just hoping for the best outcome.
King would never have agreed to the shifting of the boundaries of what can still be called lawful and the relapse into violence. On that day, King warned his followers 'Do not allow our protests to degenerate into violence. We must always rise above ourselves and resist physical violence with spiritual strength.'
What is going to happen now? What awaits Thailand? As I wrote before, all roads lead to the courts. The military knows that the Red Shirts will not tolerate another coup and they have now handed the responsibility to the courts. These people, clad in black robes, will soon decide whether we can face general elections or suspend democracy in favor of an 'impartial' interim administration.
The credibility of our justice system has been compromised by some very bizarre verdicts. It is imperative that our courts issue rulings based on the rule of law and not be swept along by the political winds. What is considered illegal for the yellow shirts must also be illegal for the red shirts. What is illegal for the Pheu Thai Party must also be illegal for the Democrats. And what is unconstitutional for Thaksin and Yingluck must also be unconstitutional for Suthep and Democrat leader Abhisit.
The courts are the ultimate adjudicators in civil society, but they will have to carry out their work with complete impartiality.
Guest Column Songkran Grachangnetara Bangkok Post, March 12, 2014 (translated by Tino Kuis).
In general I think you are right, but I want to add a footnote.
Suthep led huge crowds for months and sent out a good signal against corruption without much violence.
All blog readers who were seduced by gut feelings about Suthep, who would get things out of hand in Bangkok, were wrong.
It is good that things have not gone wrong (so far) and Suthep has taken a step back.
In this stalemate you cannot force things, that does not mean that Suthep has missed the mark.
It is good that there will be lawsuits, so that a subsequent decision can be made.
I think that Suthep never belonged in the list of heads of state, but that this was not his ambition either. He knew that his performances posed a great risk to his family and himself. Yet he took these risks, knowing that government leaders, like those in your list, are better protected than Suthep and his family... In other words... I think you really have to do a lot for your country to keep the grenades in your own garden. with all the consequences that entails.
greetings from Danny
Danny ,
what a praise to Suthep ,
do you know why the above ' had to clear the field ' in the past ?
the matter is much more complex than you think, several (power) factors play a role.
fine piece by Sonkran.
time will tell ……….
e
Has the PDRC (and Suthep) failed? Yes and no.
Were the demonstrations peaceful? Yes and no.
Do all roads lead to the courts? Yes and no.
The PDRC may have failed to eradicate Thaksinism, but it has been significantly weakened. Incidentally, the government itself contributed the most to this, but I think a movement was needed to denounce the failure, incompetence and alleged democratic intentions of Yingluck et al. An absolute gain is that more parties and authorities have been shaken up and want to speak up about the processes in this country that are not doing this country any good. An absolute gain is also that the army has kept aloof.
I do not want to play down the number of deaths and injuries, but in the same period as the demonstrations, violence (throughout Thailand, but also in the south) and road accidents killed many more people than the demonstrations. The deaths were again mainly caused by (possibly hired) armed gangs on both sides, not by the violence of demonstrators or the police or army authorized by the authorities.
That courts are consulted by all warring parties for every fart that bothers them has been this way for many years and I think shows the immaturity of democracy in this country. An absolute benefit is that reforms are also discussed and discussed. Judges can only judge on the basis of existing laws and, in extending them, according to the spirit of the law. In my view, some of those laws are bizarre and less like the rulings of the judges in the past. They didn't make the laws.
Dear Chris,
Read my posting: 'The laws are excellent, but the administration of justice...' and especially the quote from Abhicit at the end. I haven't been able to discover any bizarre laws in Thailand yet, if you find any let me know. In my opinion, it is the administration of justice that is failing.
https://www.thailandblog.nl/achtergrond/rechtspleging-thailand-de-wetten-zijn-voortreffelijk-maar/
dear Tina
Personally, I find it bizarre that people accused of terrorism, corruption or other crimes (people who even admit to murders like the teenager this week who killed his father, mother and brother) are allowed to walk free on bail in this society (even being a secretary of state in a government) while you're going to jail for life if you have a few grams of heroin in your pocket. Not to mention freedom of speech. You have already written enough about this yourself. Bizarre enough?
Dear Hans,
I don't know what sincere protesters are. But if you mean my students and colleagues who demonstrated until Suthep outlined his undemocratic future (a kind of Volksraad)… well: those people ARE damned happy that reforms are being discussed (and don't let Suthep be fooled). I hope they also find their channels to keep that fire going.
In a country like Thailand where the democratic system of checks and balances does not work properly (because every majority in parliament tends to get its way and not listen to other opinions, let alone compromise) there are other institutes that have taken over this role. Until now, this has mainly been the army. Personally, I'm glad this didn't happen again. Statements by judges, the electoral commission and the NACC – with this background – are always considered political. The loser is angry, the winner happy. But here too, a change is slowly taking place. Several parties say in advance that they will accept a decision.
With an annual average of 26.000 road fatalities, approximately 3 Thai people died in traffic during the 6.000-month demonstrations. THESE deaths are trivialized in my humble opinion, not the deaths during the demonstrations.
Good position and this should be acceptable to everyone. That is the basis of a rule of law.
Kidney
Does the blood crawl where it can't go, Hans? Welcome back! It's nice to finally read something from you again.