Different

Yet another illustration that the so-called "crisis" besetting our politics is largely spin-driven: when Thaksin said he would not seek the post of prime minister in the newly-elected Thai parliament, that was read in these parts as a resignation.

On that erroneous reading of foreign parliamentary politics, the opposition rose in chorus, demanding that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo ‘do a Thaksin’. That was the spin that ripped through the media - even if, at the most basic, it overlooked glaring differences in circumstances and processes.

To further reinforce that spin and keep the media campaign rolling, five senators, led by the Senate President, did the most pathetic thing possible. Employing the cheapest event-engineering possible, the five appeared on the steps of the Senate – more like lost Pharisees from Jerusalem than treacherous senators out to kill the Caesar – to launch a ‘Gloria Resign Movement.’

In that poorly conceived political theater, the most the five senators could do to underscore the seriousness of their mission was to put on "Gloria Resign" stickers on their oversized and overpriced SUVs. They were cheered on by a motley crowd of Senate employees whose obvious motivation is fear of joblessness in the event that chamber is abolished by Charter change.

This was, by every visual indication, a tepid crusade, a self-serving mission.

Meanwhile, at the lower House, Rep. Golez delivers a forgettable privilege speech praising Thaksin for what was so grossly misread as a great act of self-sacrifice. That was a speech that would resonate only in the vacant minds of the uninformed.

In the following days, demonstrations continued in Bangkok. The Thais who wanted Thaksin out knew fully well the man would rule without having to do the chores a prime minister needs to do. They knew there would be Thaksinism without the inconvenience of Thaksin at the helm.

In the parliamentary elections held last week, Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai party won an outright majority. In a parliamentary government, the ruling party rules. That is not diminished by whoever from among the ruling party sits as prime minister.

Therefore, Thaksin may choose not to seek the post of prime minister and yet keep the party’s dominance undiminished. He may choose not to be prime minister and yet remain leader of the party that rules.

That’s not so difficult to understand for people familiar with how parliamentary democracy works. Yet the five senators and Golez miss the point in their rush to create a media event here out of the "resignation" of Thaksin there.

There are a few virtues in the parliamentary system of government. One of those is that a party leader may choose not to be prime minister. By making that choice, he does not precipitate a political vacuum. Things do not become unhinged. There is no great anxiety about where the nation would go the next moment.

What apparently happened, leading to Thaksin’s announcement he would not seek the post of prime minister, was a conversation with the revered King Bhumibol of Thailand. The King apparently conveyed to the politician his feeling that things might be quieter in the kingdom if someone else became prime minister. Thaksin has become a provocation for unrest since his family sold a major Thai corporation to Singaporean interests – and by some loophole managed to avoid paying taxes for the windfall.

The deal riled the Thais twice over: first, because a major Thai corporation was sold to Singaporeans; and, second, because the wealthy Shinawatra family pulled the deal without paying taxes.

Thaksin, however, is a lot wilier than our glib politicians give him credit for. He may be at the center of controversy but his party is still at the center of power. Rural voters, who benefited immensely from his populist policies, and the Thai business community that benefited from his forward-looking policies returned the Thai Rak Thai to power.

This is what gets the goat of the anti-Thaksin factions. The enemy they vilified to no end appears to have outmaneuvered them. By graciously refusing the top post, he removes himself as the focal point of controversy. But by doing so only after snap elections were held, he ensured his party’s uncontested hold on power.

The anti-Thaksin opposition, by focusing on Thaksin and by boycotting the elections, helped ensure that uncontested hold on power by Thaksin allies. They now find themselves in an exasperating bind: they have no Thaksin to beat up in the streets and yet Thaksin continues to call the shots.

If Thaksin listened to Golez’s endless praise of him in quest of a sound bite, he would have laughed out loudly. The Filipino politicians missed all the nuances of the game Thaksin played.

If Thaksin listened to the five ‘resign’ senators, he would laugh louder still. They missed all the circumstances that were patently different between the context of Thai politics in which he maneuvered ever so deftly and the context of Filipino politics in which his counterpart has more than survived every attempt to oust her from office.

Until those differences are understood, until all the nuances are noticed, the anti-Gloria politicians will continue running around like headless chickens, attempting to keep their steam going by pulling one cheap stunt after another.

The game will be played out differently here than it actually played out in Thailand. Here, because of the system of government we have, the costs of displacing the head of government, especially given the fact that now ready alternative is available, are simply too high.

The case for premature termination of a fixed presidential term must be ten-fold more compelling than it has been made so far. Otherwise, people might be disenchanted more with the alternative scenarios than the existing reality.

Thaksin, given the specific characteristics of parliamentary politics, could pull that particular maneuver that allows him to vanish from the scaffolding and yet remain in tight control. Gloria Arroyo, working in the very different terrain of presidential politics, will necessarily have to work on a different line of maneuver.

If there are any similarities that may be drawn in the end, it might be the very similar plight of the opposition in both cases. They seem to be constantly a step behind the power-wielder and constantly asking each other what happened.