The sanctity of law
The Sun Daily
Sonia Randhawa
OVER the last year, we’ve seen scenes of chaos, anger and mayhem. People stranded for days at airports, high level government meetings postponed and the near collapse of a political system.
Thailand is a sobering example of a flailing democracy.
To prevent a recurrence of the Thai calamity, it might be sobering to look at the roots of the crisis.
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra came to power with a huge mandate. In both urban and rural areas he was greeted with massive support. There were, inevitably, some murmurings of unrest, academics and journalists who were a little unhappy about the concentration of economic, social (particularly through the media) and political power that he represented. But they were a minority, and were to a large part ignored. And initially it seemed with good reason.
Thaksin increased his popularity and power with economic reforms, directed at the rural sector, which became the bulwark of his support. His disturbing campaign against crime, resulting in widespread extra-judicial killings, was also greeted with widespread support, even if it violated the rights (including right to life) of a couple of thousand people. Something was being done. But it was just part of an increasingly disturbing picture.
The larger picture showed this as just one part of an increasing disregard for Thailand’s 1997 Constitution. The administration’s treatment of the media – the increasing concentration of ownership and refusal to institute the National Broadcasting Commission which would have dispersed this concentration – were also symptomatic. Thaksin was also perceived to be perverting the independence of the judiciary. And the urban elites were not the only ones to be concerned that Thaksin was undermining the legitimacy of the very institution from which he derived his power – the constitution.
It was this perception that led to the popular (urban) support for the coup of 2006. It may well have been one of the factors behind the coup itself. Of course, this in turn tumbled the house of cards. It was almost impossible for the new system to have popular legitimacy. The generals wanted to ensure that Thaksin would, and could, not return. The mass of the population still supported him, his policies and his party. But it should be remembered that the current prime minister came to office not on the power of protests, but due to a court decision on corruption. It was the courts that paved the way for his ascension.
The problem by this point was that the courts were seen as massively compromised. They were placed in the impossible position that whatever decision they made in these highly political corruption trials, the decision would be perceived to be unjust, to be politically motivated. The independence, impartiality and fairness of the judiciary, having been tainted under Thaksin, was completely compromised. Various authors have pointed out that the judiciary could have escaped the problem, they could have referred these cases to other bodies (such as oversight committees, electoral bodies and the like), and retained their impartiality. They chose not to. And the result has been that the judiciary is tarred.
And this is bad for Thailand, for the Thai people and for those in power. Because there is nowhere that legitimacy unquestionably resides. The one possible exception in Thailand is the monarchy, but the inability of the people to discuss the role of the monarchy coupled with the unease of the king’s role and the king’s inactions in the various political dramas are eroding faith in this one previously unassailable institution.
It’s hard to see a way forward. The only path is to rebuild faith in all the institutions of government, from the constitution onwards. There is an urgent need to rebuild legitimacy, to rebuild faith in the judiciary, in the police force, even the medical services.
Perhaps the main lessons for Thailand’s neighbours are to not let things come to this impasse.
Ensure that the institutions of government – the judiciary, the police, the army – are seen as impartial, apolitical and equally accessible to all. To ensure that the monarchy remains untainted with political machinations. And, above all, to uphold the supremacy of the constitution and the rights enshrined within it – the right to life, the right to freedom of speech, the right to legal representation. And the right to a legally elected representative democracy.
Sonia thinks liberty and equality are the only real guarantors of security. Comment: letters@thesundaily.com
The Sun Daily
Sonia Randhawa
OVER the last year, we’ve seen scenes of chaos, anger and mayhem. People stranded for days at airports, high level government meetings postponed and the near collapse of a political system.
Thailand is a sobering example of a flailing democracy.
To prevent a recurrence of the Thai calamity, it might be sobering to look at the roots of the crisis.
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra came to power with a huge mandate. In both urban and rural areas he was greeted with massive support. There were, inevitably, some murmurings of unrest, academics and journalists who were a little unhappy about the concentration of economic, social (particularly through the media) and political power that he represented. But they were a minority, and were to a large part ignored. And initially it seemed with good reason.
Thaksin increased his popularity and power with economic reforms, directed at the rural sector, which became the bulwark of his support. His disturbing campaign against crime, resulting in widespread extra-judicial killings, was also greeted with widespread support, even if it violated the rights (including right to life) of a couple of thousand people. Something was being done. But it was just part of an increasingly disturbing picture.
The larger picture showed this as just one part of an increasing disregard for Thailand’s 1997 Constitution. The administration’s treatment of the media – the increasing concentration of ownership and refusal to institute the National Broadcasting Commission which would have dispersed this concentration – were also symptomatic. Thaksin was also perceived to be perverting the independence of the judiciary. And the urban elites were not the only ones to be concerned that Thaksin was undermining the legitimacy of the very institution from which he derived his power – the constitution.
It was this perception that led to the popular (urban) support for the coup of 2006. It may well have been one of the factors behind the coup itself. Of course, this in turn tumbled the house of cards. It was almost impossible for the new system to have popular legitimacy. The generals wanted to ensure that Thaksin would, and could, not return. The mass of the population still supported him, his policies and his party. But it should be remembered that the current prime minister came to office not on the power of protests, but due to a court decision on corruption. It was the courts that paved the way for his ascension.
The problem by this point was that the courts were seen as massively compromised. They were placed in the impossible position that whatever decision they made in these highly political corruption trials, the decision would be perceived to be unjust, to be politically motivated. The independence, impartiality and fairness of the judiciary, having been tainted under Thaksin, was completely compromised. Various authors have pointed out that the judiciary could have escaped the problem, they could have referred these cases to other bodies (such as oversight committees, electoral bodies and the like), and retained their impartiality. They chose not to. And the result has been that the judiciary is tarred.
And this is bad for Thailand, for the Thai people and for those in power. Because there is nowhere that legitimacy unquestionably resides. The one possible exception in Thailand is the monarchy, but the inability of the people to discuss the role of the monarchy coupled with the unease of the king’s role and the king’s inactions in the various political dramas are eroding faith in this one previously unassailable institution.
It’s hard to see a way forward. The only path is to rebuild faith in all the institutions of government, from the constitution onwards. There is an urgent need to rebuild legitimacy, to rebuild faith in the judiciary, in the police force, even the medical services.
Perhaps the main lessons for Thailand’s neighbours are to not let things come to this impasse.
Ensure that the institutions of government – the judiciary, the police, the army – are seen as impartial, apolitical and equally accessible to all. To ensure that the monarchy remains untainted with political machinations. And, above all, to uphold the supremacy of the constitution and the rights enshrined within it – the right to life, the right to freedom of speech, the right to legal representation. And the right to a legally elected representative democracy.
Sonia thinks liberty and equality are the only real guarantors of security. Comment: letters@thesundaily.com
No comments:
Post a Comment