Will blood flow (again) in Thailand?

The most frequently asked question to me so far in 2012 is not: “Voranai, how are you?”, but: “Voronai, is violence coming again?” I'm not a clairvoyant, but I know that fate is inexorable, so let's dig a little deeper into it.

Living today Thailand in a culture of fear and paranoia. This is a country struggling with its identity. The population experiences multiple insecurities, all of which are manipulated in some way.

The saga of the Nitirat group is one of those, which rises and falls like the waves of a rough sea. Journalists surrounding Natirat leader Worajet Pakheerat said a month ago that the man of bravado was sure of victory. Talk to him this week and you will see that the spirit is still there, albeit somewhat muted, and the bravado is still there, but also somewhat subdued.

When the Nitirat group (a group of seven professors from Thammasat University) proposed amending Article 112 of the Penal Code on lèse-majesté, it was received with drums. It was supported by a large section of the Red Shirts, public opinion was in favour, and some prominent social figures, such as the elder statesman Anand Panyarachun, also gave their thumbs up. Even a group of eight people with royal "blue blood" signed a petition to change the law.

The matter is fairly simple. In recent years, politicians and other individuals have abused the law for their own specific ends, compromising freedom of expression and causing trouble for their opponents and ordinary citizens. The consensus seemed to be that it was a good idea to change the law to close loopholes and protect the democratic and human rights of Thai citizens. Exactly how that law should be amended would have to be determined by lawyers.

But suddenly the Nitirat group has become a despised and reviled group. Their support has diminished, the growing number of opponents screams murder and fire. The Red Shirts have already officially distanced themselves, as have most political parties, the military, the police, many academics, civil society administrators and the public at large. The Club of Law Alumni of Thammasat University has also joined the opposition.

Even Thammasat University itself is against the Nitirat group, as are the teachers of the School of Journalism, which nevertheless values ​​freedom of expression. “There is freedom in every square inch of Thammasat” or so it is often said. Rector Somkit Lertpaitkorn spoke those words recently in reference to the school's decision to send 19-year-old Abhinya "Joss Stick"

Sawatvarakorn, who has been charged with lèse majesté.

But when Mr. Somkit decided to ban activities of the Nitirat group on the university campus, we knew something serious was going on. If this university, which championed democracy in 1973 and 1976, applies self-censorship, you know that the subject is too hot. Mr. Somkit's reasoning is that the issue is so sensitive and so polarizing that it could implode. He doesn't want chaos and bloodshed to take place on his campus.

The question then is how an attempt to change the law to protect human rights can lead to a fear of chaos and bloodshed. Almost everyone forgets the heart of the matter and that is often the cause of chaos and bloodshed. If the heart of the matter is ignored, all kinds of rumors arise, which in turn lead to fear and paranoia, followed by knee-jerk reactions.

For example, it is now rumored that the Nitirat group is supported by Thaksin Shinawatra, who would also like to bring the monarchy itself up for discussion. I don't know if that rumor is true, I have no psychic abilities. I do know that the Nitirat group, encouraged by a good start, started saying the wrong things. They may have meant well, but what matters is how society perceives this. Suddenly the problem had become bigger than lèse-majeste when members of the group started talking about Article 2 of the Constitution, which concerns the status of the monarchy.

Nitirat suggested that the King should take an oath to defend the Constitution and then also swear to defend the people. This could prevent a military coup in the future of this country, where tanks are all too common in the streets. To someone who is not Thai, this sounds sincere and reasonable, as that is the practice in many other constitutional monarchies.

But for a Thai who has learned to love and respect the King and monarchy all his life, this is a shocking change. It has been ingrained in the cultural mindset for a long time, at least for the past 60 years, that “we, the people” defend the King, not the other way around.

Our collective love, worship and reverence for the King is part of our national identity. When soldiers take the oath, it is first and foremost to defend the monarchy, followed by the Constitution and far behind that the population. The majority of Thai people do not question this logic.

That is not to say that such a cultural mindset is right or wrong, it is what it is. As such, the Nitirat proposal is seen as a lowering of the status of the monarchy and therefore very confusing with what has been ingrained in our national psyche long before most of us were born.

Even more damning, one member of the group suggested that the King should stop giving a speech on his birthday. Imagine the effect those words have on Thai identity. Such words have nothing to do with lèse-majesté and frankly it was asking for trouble, and they got it.

But to claim that a Thaksin-inspired conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy is afoot is undoubtedly going a long way. Still, nothing goes too far when the culture of fear and paraoia prevails. Timing is everything, especially in a country with an identity crisis. What Nitiriat proposes is in line with most other constitutional monarchies and to change the lèse-majeste law is not wrong, but all other statements show poor timing and judgment. Hold a microphone in front of someone long enough and sooner or later someone will say the wrong thing. The Nitirat group has undermined itself.

Given the current reality in Thailand, it is inevitable that Nitirat will lose the battle with the proposal. Perhaps there are some good points in the proposal, which can be used to gain support in the next round of combat.

It was a strategic blunder, but is the issue so contentious that it can implode in chaos and carnage, as happened in Thammasat in October 1976? Mr. Somkit fears it could happen, but other academics and experts think it unlikely, because we no longer live – as we did in 1976 – in a Cold War. In this modern age there are other circumstances and economic demands, including the fragile status of the current Pheu Thai government, which will prevent anyone from causing too much turmoil.

And yet, in addition to lèse-majesté and the status of the monarchy, there are other controversial issues, such as charter changes, compensation for those who have suffered political violence or are otherwise in economic difficulty; add to this the constant struggle for power and control of the old and new elites and I'm not so sure.

I think the thinking of the George Friedman school applies: logic and reason tend to fly out the window in predicting people's behavior. Man is a capricious being. The chaos and carnage in Thailand over the past 5 years is proof of that.

There are several options: continue in the name of freedom and democracy, flirt with chaos and carnage, sacrifice fundamental human rights for democratic progress, all in the interests of security, as Mr. Somkit did for Thammasat, or we simply become wiser in our doings and don'ts.

Fate is inexorable and to make progress one must devise better strategies to protect the innocent from the overzealous use of the lèse-majeste law. The law should only be used for those who really offend the King and the monarchy.

Keep it at this. Everything else can be realized step by step later.

This is Voronai Vanijika's weekly column, published today in the Bangkok Post. Reactions can be reserved and in general, but the editors reserve the right not to post reactions.