The Philippine Online Chronicles

Nearly all political struggles throughout history are characterized by the warring haves and have-nots. Actually, this is the most unspoken and unwritten fact! People, governments and countries create this illusion of no division that all are created equal and gone are the days of discrimination.

However looking at modern society now, in different almost invisible arenas, there deeply engrained are the worsening injustices. The marginalized poor are deprived of their share of the world’s resources unfortunately because only a few control them.

If there is really no economic unrest, then certainly this is a fallacy. If class war is a simplistic theory, then how come most countries cannot resolve this war for centuries? In fact, the present society even contributed new forms of inequality, pushing the poor people to the edge, thus have become desperate in their moves, desperate to survive.

The overly-abused term “democracy” helped cloaked this ugly truth. In dictionaries, the meaning of democracy is the rule of the majority. In the course of history, governments either changed their standards or have misinterpreted the term. They called their societies democratic eventhough theirs are teemed with inequality and attacks on freedom and the rights of the people. In short, democracy has become the instrument of the elites in various parts of the world to maintain not order but the status quo and the privileges they enjoyed.

Genuine democracy only functions if it serves the majority but marginalized sectors of the society.

NOW: The Red and Yellow Shirt Protests

The political upheaval in Thailand is a case of class war!

The Red Shirt Movement

Recently, the red shirt protesters again occupied the streets of Bangkok to demand the government dissolve the parliament this year and call for fresh elections. In the national rehabilitation plan presented by the government, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva scheduled to dissolve the parliament on September and call for fresh elections on November 14.

Though this has been the promise of the current parliament, there has been a problem because this does not come without conditions. That they would only push through with the plan if there is “peace in society.” Apart from this, the hostility of the Military Security Command and Deputy Prime Minister Sutep towards protesters, threatening them with dispersal and calling them terrorists, cannot possibly lead to any peaceful settlement.

The Red Shirt protesters are the supporters of the former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Most came from the peasantry of the rural north and northeast. They benefited from Thaksin’s populist policies on education and health. They are led by the anti-government group, United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD).

Since the removal of the former prime minister in office last September 2006, the red shirt supporters have hounded the streets of Bangkok time and again pushing to dissolve the parliament and call for fresh elections. They believe that the former prime minister was removed illegitimately from office and that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva should resign.

The Yellow Shirt Movement

The ouster of Thaksin was orchestrated by the yellow shirt protesters. The People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) led by media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang, former general with close ties to the king's most senior adviser, Gen Pam Tinsulanondaled are the movers of this faction. They were responsible for the crippling of Thailand’s vital tourism industry when they have engineered the week-long siege of the airports of Bangkok last December 2008.

The yellows are supporters of the authoritarian elite currently in power. The middle class supports these elites as well. Like in any class-based struggles, the elites thought of the poor as illiterate and too stupid to be trusted with the vote. Thus, they imposed their own brand of democracy and reduce the power of the poor majority’s vote.

The intention of keeping democracy in a backward state is to maintain the economic system in favor of the elites and because they are neoliberals, they do not want state spending on people’s welfare.

The Analysis

With these two factions warring over state power, the class war is quite obvious. The stark evidence of the division was a scene at the latest Thailand protest where the red shirts camped out at the glitzy Ratchaprasong commercial district. One fruit vendor from the rural north earning 100 baht (USD3) was interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald. She said that she had tolerated poverty in the past. “It cannot be like that now. They are always rich, we always poor. That is not democracy!”

Thaksin played his cards well. He went for a dual track policy. He used a combination of neoliberalism and populist policies that spend for people’s welfare and economic development. He built his electoral support around this. While on the other hand, the conservatives have a leadership crisis. The king is old and weak at 82 and his son is reportedly an unpopular heir to the throne.

Although Thaksin’s group appeared to be a savior of the peasants and urban poor, they are not primarily there to do that obligation. The people need to avoid getting mesmerized with the nobility of Thaksin and his UDD because like many self-proclaimed hero, he is not there for charity. With his limited handouts to the poor, Thaksin is sure to defend the interests not of the poor but of his own breed, the business people and the different factions of the elite he maintain as allies when times of crisis arises.

However, amidst the pretentious UDD leadership, the “Red Shirt” movement composed of the poor majority is pro-democracy. Though Thaksin-supporters, they are not his apparatus. They have grown far beyond the man. They are self-organized in the grassroots level and are now for the realization of broader social ideals. Many also are Republicans (“for the abolition of the monarchy”).

During Thaksin’s reign as prime minister, he developed an antagonistic relationship with the old/traditional elite such as the monarchy, big business and the elite. Apart from the vertical class war happening, there is also the horizontal class war going on between the different elite factions. The traditional elite composed of the monarchy, state bureaucracy and the military looked down on the likes of Thaksin’s who are considered to be “new money.” Moreover, the populist policies of Thaksin appeared to dilute the privileges of the old elite. Thaksin actually fed on the long-created system of patronage, which alienated the traditional elites.

There is nothing simplistic about this class struggle topped with the elite’s fight among themselves and the pretension that they know what the real problem is and its solution. They usually point out on economic inequality as the problem but when people strive to reach economic equality, they attack on their democratic rights to prevent equality from happening.

In addition to the class’ role, the regional divide may have some contributions as well in the conflict. Central Thailand and Bangkok gets most of the share of the per capita GDP in the capital remains. This is as much as 10 times higher than in some parts of the northeast. Therefore, the anger of some red shirt protesters, both from the poor majority and those rich supporters of Thaksin, may actually sprang from the feeling of exclusion: excluded from the benefits of globalization worsened by Thailand's income inequality; excluded from political decision-making concentrated unhealthily in Bangkok; and excluded from the traditional levers of power—the army, the civil service, the judiciary, and the monarchy, all of which are highly conservative.

If the red shirt protesters stayed with the illusion of their movement, they will end up being betrayed. They are wrong to believe that their leadership would stick with them come the time when the situation gets out of hand. Remember that Thaksin and his rich supporters who benefitted from the red movement are capitalists and once capitalism is threatened, they will not hesitate to save it rather than support the poor members of the movement on their ideals.

Just recall how Thaksin and the UDD leadership ended the campaign when the clashes against the protesters and soldiers seem to get out of hand last April. This is only one manifestation that the leadership of the red movement uses their poor members for their personal and business interests.

THEN: The military and the old elite interventions

In the history of Thailand, protests are highly characterized by interventions from the military, monarchy and the old elite. Clashes too between the military and civilian leaders continue to dominate Thai politics as seen in the postwar period of Thailand until now as witnessed in the recent red shirts protests.

Actually, these recent protests of the red shirts with threats of dispersal from the military are just mirror images of the previous protests. Thaksin also practiced his own autocratic methods and launched a reactionary “law-and-order” campaign in 2003, rounding up and murdering hundreds of alleged drug dealers. Also in 2005, amidst the country’s Buddhist majority, Thaksin spread an anti-Muslim sentiment and ordered a crackdown of the military on Muslim separatists in the southern provinces of Thailand. When oppositions emerged, Thaksin close in on his critics and held a firm grip over the media. These iron-clad fist methods of Thaksin cost him his position in the large, anti-government protest in 2006.

The Day of Great Sorrow (14 October 1973)

It is interesting to note that in the course of Thailand’s history, there is only one political struggle that brought down a military dictator only to end up violently leaving the Thai society traumatized by what was supposed to be a battle won by the people.

Until now, the October 14, 1973 revolution of the student movement remains to be the darkest period in Thai political history.

The ordeal of the student movement started October 6 to 15, now popularly called as “Ten Days.” On October 6, 11 students and adults were arrested for distributing leaflets that called for a new constitution by the end of the year. Soon after, they became victims of illegal search and surveillance. The next day another activist was arrested for the same offense, making the total number of arrested to 12. On October 8, Deputy Prime Minister Prapas decided that they could not be released on bail and accused them of being involved in a communist plot to overthrow the government. This enraged the student movement, which led to a huge rally the next day with 2,000 supporters. While the days progress, the crowd of protesters grew to 50,000. Schools and universities in Bangkok closed to support the protests. The students met with Prapas, the police chief, to appeal for the release of the prisoners. The police chief refused the release but promised a new constitution in less than two years. The students were unsatisfied with the response, which led to one more arrest, making the political prisoners 13. Last arrested activist supported the protesters through a hunger strike. Not knowing what to do and concerned about the heightening situation, Prime Minister Thanom and Police Chief Prapas went to see the king who was also greatly concerned.

On October 12, the students sent a message to the government about the 24-hour deadline for the unconditional release of the prisoners or else a decisive action would be in order. The government responded a few hours later offering a release of the prisoners on bail. The student refused the offer because it was not an unconditional release. Soldiers were sent a day later while the 200,000 students and other protesters prepared to march. During the day, the student leaders met with king including some arrested activists. The government already pushed through with the release of all activists even if the student leaders refused. On the side, the protesters were increasing in numbers, reaching 400,000.

With the king’s intervention, the government dropped all charges against the activists and promised by October a permanent constitution. When the order was brought down, almost half of the crowd celebrated the victory while the other half remained on the streets wanting a guarantee from the government that they will keep their promise. With this, they sought the king’s advice. They reached the palace by October 14 and the king’s representative met with them. The king thought that since their demand was met, they will already go home. Before leaving the palace, the demonstrators sang the national anthem.

The fateful day of October 14 ended with violence. Bringing home with them their met demands, the protesters were faced with hostile law enforcers. In their attempt to bring order to the departure of thousands of protesters, violence erupted. The police allowed the students to leave only in one direction and refused to open another exit as the students had requested. Resentment grew among the students. The real events were unclear. Stories of student beatings by the police spread like wild fire. Reaching the stadium where half of the protesters were celebrating, the beaten up crowd joined forces with the other crowd and sought revenge. The fight ended for two days. Students and protesters realizing that their efforts were futile against the troops, began burning down buildings.

Again, the king needed to intervene at that point. Although he lacked official political power, he instead invoked his moral power to end the violence of the warring parties. He called for a compromise. The three officials in question – Prime Minister Thanom, Police Chief Prapas and Colonel Narong, Commander 11 Infantry Regiment were to leave the country in secret rather than face trial. The rector of the Thammasat University, Sanya Thammasakdi took over the Prime Minister position. He was a sympathizer of the students’ position and would be the head of the first ever civilian government in years. He was also tasked to write the new constitution.

Although the student movement won the battle, the fact remains that over one hundred students lay dead and several hundreds were wounded.

Thailand’s political struggles in comparison with the other nations

In comparison to Thailand’s history of “class war” political struggle is the story of the striking contrast between the Philippine EDSA 2 and 3 revolutions. As mentioned earlier in this article, the most unspoken and unwritten fact is the obvious class divide, which describes most political struggles. In Thailand, the name of the class war is the red versus yellow shirts protests.

In the Philippines, the name of the class war was the revolt of the elite, EDSA 2 and the revolt of the masses, EDSA 3.

EDSA 2 was led by the elite, middle class, the youth, the so-called educated Filipinos, the military, the media and the Church. All these conspired to topple down a former action star turned President because of his alleged ill-gotten wealth and “immoral” acts. EDSA 3, on the other hand, were mostly from the urban poor sector of the society.

EDSA 2 was a series of non-violent “people power” demonstrations while EDSA 3 was a chaotic and violent mob – protesters throwing stones at the police, burning of rubbers, toppling of cars and others.

EDSA 2 is the yellow shirt protesters while the EDSA 3 is the red shirt protesters. However, much like in Thailand, the EDSA 3 protesters were led by another faction of the elite that was allied with the former president and have used the poor masses to serve well their interests. Former President Joseph “ERAP” Estrada was unfavored by the inner circle of the traditional Philippine elite because he did not serve them. On the other hand, ERAP was within the inner circles of some rather unscrupulous elite characters and had been backing favored business allies. He was very popular with the poor masses and push populist policies for them.

Thailand’s political unrest can also be compared not only with Asian nations. According to a self-exiled Thai Socialist, Giles Ji Ungpakorn, a distorted class-struggle-type has been the trend in various political struggles from all over the world. One that is lead by a capitalist politician, very much like Thaksin, but developing its own momentum at times of deep crisis. The situation in Honduras and Turkey are somewhat similar to what’s happening in Thailand.

Conclusion

At this time, there is a sense of urgency for the proletariat, the urban poor, the peasants and the marginalized sectors in Thailand to begin recognizing their deep-rooted problems or else face unfathomable danger in the end. With the military might, royalist ideology and money politics used by the elites as weapons, the poor stand no chance at change going their favor. They must realize “the organic incapacity of the bourgeoisie of a belated capitalist development, such as Thailand, to satisfy the democratic aspirations and social needs of working people. Only the proletariat is capable of championing genuine democratic rights and agrarian reform that can rouse the rural masses into a struggle for a workers and farmers’ government based on socialist policies.”

The ordinary people of Thailand should already stop playing victims of sugar-coated right-wing agendas with socialistic-sounding slogans and of politicians claiming that they are for democracy. These very same politicians will attack the very movement they have appealed to if it threatens the capitalist system.

What Thailand experienced in the recent years is not exactly a “pure class war” but a seriously distorted class-war-type. Since Thailand presently has no so-called left movement because of the collapse of the Communist Party of Thailand (CPT), the people has no one to turn to but populist politician figures like Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai party. He filled the vacuum and was successful in inspiring millions of ordinary Thais.

Although there is a rivalry to speak of between “the old feudal order” and “the modern capitalist class,” what should be noted in the analyses is the people’s action. Oftentimes, unnoticed and ignored. In desperation, these people had put their hopes in one man who brought them what the greedy, self-serving elites of their country have deprived them. Yes, they do like Thaksin, but their battlecry is genuine democracy and social justice. However, it is with the likes of Thaksin as well that these people face grave danger. At the end of the day, he is still a capitalist and he’s interest lies with the survival of the capitalist class rule by using any means necessary including the use of the Monarchy.

If the proletariat, the rural and urban poor, peasants and other marginalized sectors in Thailand want the battle half won, they have to take matters into their own hands literally speaking. They would have to fill in the vacuum, not by another populist capitalist figure, but by the creation of their own genuine workers’ political party that will push forward policies for they own welfare.

To do this, they have to make their presence felt and this cannot be done by joining the UDD protests and rallies alone. This independent political party should have its own political voice and emerge as independent of all factions. If the leadership of the red shirt movement thinks of real change, then they must go further and agitate more the urban working class and the lower military ranks in order to prepare the stage for revolutionary change. No compromise with the elite faction must be entertained or their power remains.