No, this is not a post that seeks to posit various inhumane ways of getting rid of our massive stray cat problem, like the amusing little book “One Hundred And One Uses For A Dead Cat” that I bought my cat-hating stepfather while I was a USC freshman over a decade ago. Instead, this is a regrettably common post about the vagaries of Thai politics. Though at least one of the other teachers here is looking forward to some ‘excitement’ here in Thailand, it is with considerable less pleasure that I look at the coup rumors that are in the air here in Thailand, as Thailand’s corrupt royal and military and economic elite look to “manage democracy” by determining the best way to get rid of a troublesome but legitimately elected government.

The Thai constitution, as it is interpreted by its corrupt judiciary, presents ways for governments to be dissolved by means other than direct (and bloody) military action. For one, any government that takes any action that threatens the position of the King as Head of State can be deemed unconstitutional according to Article 7 of the current Thai constitution [1]. Of course, this is a rather subjective measure of judgment. If one assumes the legitimacy of whatever the King of Thailand (or his supporters) want to do, this gives them a free reign to declare any government dissolved that threatens the prestige of the monarchy, basically making democratic rule in Thailand impossible, given the wide disparity between the will of the people and the will of those who pretend to be the sole legitimate rulers of the people.

It should be noted by students of Thai political history that the judicial route to overthrowing a democratic government has been done before, rather recently. In one of the previous Thai government crises of 2005-2006 the Democratic Party of Thailand was prepared to seek the dissolution of then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra using Article 7 to present him as a threat to the monarchy, although the military ended up overthrowing his government in a coup more directly anyway. It would appear as if Thailand’s elites have little interest in more than the forms of democratic rule without actually accepting the verdict of the people in determining who is to sit in power. The lack of faith in the legitimacy of the voice of the people suggests a sense that some believe they are better and wiser and natural leaders, and that if the people will not accept their claims to rule, then the people’s voices are to be disregarded. This is not to say that the voice of a majority of the people are infallible, but rather that a functioning republic of any kind depends on a trust in one’s abilities as a political party to persuade those who have fallen for false promises of hope and change by rogues and charlatans and poseurs who merely seek power without being able or willing to seek the good of the people at large into supporting different policies and platforms in the future.

Of course, even though the Thai opposition is seeking its way through the courts (courts that are remarkably friendly to their aims and relentlessly hostile to any Thai who is judged as speaking unfavorably of the king), there are coup talks of a more direct kind that are floating around Thailand that reach my ears and inbox. For example, Thai military chief Prayuth, about whom I have preciously discussed [2], has started to move around army colonels in a move similar to that which was undertaken before 2006 coup, holding meetings with army leaders this past week, in a move that (unsurprisingly) spooked the Thai government’s defense minister into returning home from an international conference [3]. However, it is possible that the Thai military and royal establishment will seek to destroy this present government via other means, as was done in 2008.

It is bad press when tanks role and the military is seen as overthrowing yet another elected Thai government in a nation that is supposed to be a loyal and democratic ally of the United States. Managed democracy that is managed via direct overthrows is messy and unpopular, and causes political problems for American leaders who are forced to dissemble time and time again about why some nations are treated differently than others when it comes to calls to accept the voice of the people. Most governments find this sort of constant justifying and lying rather tedious and unpleasant, and so it appears that Thailand’s elites are seeking after less bloody and overt ways of getting their way through the use of the courts to nullify unfriendly results at the ballot.

These are not the behaviors of a ruling elite or royal establishment that genuinely cares about the well being of the ordinary people. To think one’s self above the people and unaccountable to them generally precludes any sort of love or respect for those same people whose wishes and preferences and decisions are being cavalierly disregarded. To flagrantly disregard or twist the law and think one’s self above the law while selectively prosecuting others for their disobedience of the law is to make a mockery of the rule of law itself. Without a rule of law, one only has one’s connections to provide a defense in a day of trouble, and one’s only strategy to rising above the status of one’s birth is to try to enmesh one’s self into elite power structures, which are notoriously conservative and resistant to new blood. The only other option is to prepare for revolution to seek the destruction of the elite, and if that step is taken by a substantial enough part of the population, then there will be blood in the streets and hell to pay for all of us.

This is of interest because Thailand is not alone in facing these problems. Have we not seen the same problems all over the world–restive populations upset about austerity and rising up against tyrannical leaders only to use their democracy to push extreme solutions to their nation’s deep-seated problems? Do we not have in the United States (to give but one example) a fiercely motivated populism of both the left (Occupy movement) and the right (the Tea Party)? The way that Thailand is so clumsily trying to avoid a genuine redress for its real problems reminds us that our own republic is in danger from the disconnect between the people and the ruling class. This is an area of grave concern far outside of Thailand, and suggests that our republics are far more fragile than we would wish to be the case. What we can do about them at this late hour is less clear, given that any popular rule depends on the respect and legitimacy that is paid to the voice of the people. Where that respect is lacking no free and legitimate government is possible.

[1] Article 7 in the latest Thai Constitution, as translated: “Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional convention in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.”

PADocrats raise Article 7 (again)

[2] http://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012/05/15/rape-and-the-military-culture-part-two/

[3] http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/rumors-of-a-military-coup-are-exaggerated/