Lessons from Thailand

The military junta that now rules Thailand after the September 19 coup has finally chosen a new premier. As expected, the new head of government is a military man, thus accentuating the military character of the new regime. Military oriented also is the new constitution designed by the men in uniform and imposed upon the people sans the latter's approval. Without doubt it is a constitution that empowers the armed establishment to call the shots in the conduct of the new government. In fact, one provision gives the junta the power to remove the premier if it feels like doing so.

One good thing, however, is that the military rulers have promised a new election sometime next year. In the meantime, Thailand stays as a militarized state. Will governance be eventually handed back to civilian authorities? That remains to be seen. The ball now is in the hands of the military. If for one reason or another the junta would refuse to relinquish their hold on power, another scenario would unfold probably similar to what happened in Myanmar.

Viewed in the light of the political developments in this country, the Thailand phenomenon is a learning experience for us Filipinos. Consider the opposition. For more than a couple of years now they have been drumbeating for extra-legal means to unseat the President. They have thrown all sorts of dirt to her government, hoping to stir up mass discontent. Their cohorts in the military have even staged an Oakwood and were said to have forged a tactical alliance with communist rebels. In February when the destabilization movement was at its peak there was even a plan to form a military junta to serve as interim ruler of the country.

Fortunately, the Filipinos did not bite their bait. Had they done so, it would have been a repeat performance of martial law. Or even worse, because what would have prevented our ambitions generals from wiping out all semblance of civilian authorities?

With the junta at the helm of the government, where would have been the opposition? Where would have been the banner-waving militants? Those vaunted gadflies of PGMA's government should thank their lucky stars their attempt at power-grab fizzled out. If it did not and the generals got what they wanted, who do you think would have been guillotined first?

For those in the administration, especially PGMA, the lesson to be learned is in the area of transparency. PM Thaksin, like the President, has been accused of shady transactions. Both are pro-poor in their policies. But the Thai premier must have leaned too much towards the have-nots because he incurred the distrust of the middle and upper classes. This has led to his downfall.

As in this country, mass actions preceded the change of government. But unlike the local scene the presence of cause-oriented groups or of discredited politicians was nowhere to be seen. Yet their protest movements must have shaken the composure of the military, thus the intervention.

The go-signal for such action must have come from a powerful source - king Bhumibol Adulyadej himself. This explains why the take-over was peaceful and it was business as usual after the event. In the anti-Gloria movements the one single voice that could have spelled her doom was that of the late Jaime Cardinal Sin. But that good servant of God was no longer around. Would he have endorsed a regime change? Most likely he won't.

One good thing working for PGMA is the structure of the presidential system. Under this the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, hence, the men in uniform owe their loyalty to her both as their service chief and as head of government. In Thailand's parliamentary system the link between the civilian authority and the military is weak. Mainly because of this, coup d'etats have been a frequent occurrence in that country.

The irony is that the administration and incumbent congressmen have been itching to restructure our government towards the parliamentary format. A lot of rationalizations have been articulated why this shift is necessary. But what has happened in Thailand, as well as in many South American countries, dubbed as the realm of "banana republics", ought to give us a second thought.

Shall we plunge headlong into the abyss of Charter Change just to get parliamentarized? Have we done an in-depth study to find out whether in the light of our socio-cultural orientation and temperament this system will work well with us?

Unless we close our eyes to what is happening in Thailand we cannot afford to place the future of this country in jeopardy.

* * *

mail: [email protected]