RIGHTS-THAILAND: Drug ‘Victory’ Exposes Fault Lines in Democracy

By Marwaan Macan-Markar Reprint | | Print |

Analysis - By Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK, Dec 5 2003 (IPS) - The ease with which Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra waged a repressive campaign to eradicate the local narcotics trade has exposed a fault line in the country’s credentials as a thriving democracy.

But Thaksin is not the only one to blame – there was hardly a whimper of protest on the streets during the 10-month ”war on drugs” that, according to human rights activists, resulted in over an estimated 3,000 killings.

The lack of public rage, including the hallmarks of a typical democratic culture like demonstrations against the violence that has come under fire from activists, contrasted sharply with the occasional bursts of criticism levelled by human rights groups.

These twin realities came to a head on Wednesday, when Thaksin declared ”victory” in his government’s anti-drug crusade. To back this claim, the Thaksin administration trotted out a list of its successes.

They included the seizure of 40 million amphetamine tablets, the wiping out of drug production bases in the country, the arrest of 52.374 suspected producers and dealers, and declaration of schools and factories in the thousands as drug-free zones.

The government launched this offensive in the wake of Thailand’s gaining notoriety for having a sizeable number of its youth, some as young as 15 years, hooked on amphetamines. This addiction was widely accepted as a national menace.

According to a U.N. study, the flow of speed pills into Thailand from drug laboratories in neighbouring Burma reached between 500 to 700 million pills every year.

The government’s achievement meant more to the majority of the public than the rampant murders – some in cold-blooded mafia style, some extrajudicial assassinations – that exposed the government’s lack of concern for human rights, activists and academics said when interviewed.

Even some of Thaksin’s staunchest critics admitted to IPS that the human rights argument made at the end of the ”war on drugs” – that it was achieved at the cost of many lives – was the view of small, vocal minority.

”The majority of people are thinking in terms of the greater good, like economic security and stability, that the Thaksin government is promising to deliver,” said Sunai Phasuk, an analyst at Forum Asia, a Bangkok-based regional human rights lobby. ”The people are willing to overlook the human rights violations.”

According to grassroots activist Bantorn Ondam, the anti-drug crusade has exposed a worrisome feature of Thai society. ”It shows that most people are not conscious of human rights issues and reluctant to express their concern through demonstrations,” said Bantorn, an advisor to a network of grassroots and local community groups, the Assembly of the Poor.

But this public attitude is only the latest in a political trend that has unfolded across the country during the past year – where signs of opposition toward government policies or actions in the form of protests have been few to hardly any at all.

In fact, the only signs that reflected this country’s democratic spirit to challenge political authority were on display early in the year.

In January, grassroots activists and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) declared that they were disheartened by Thaksin and launched a campaign to collect 50,000 signatures to trigger a Senate inquiry with the aim of dismissing him. But Thaksin still remains very much in charge.

That was followed by protests from the communities affected by the government’s decision to open the sluice gates in a controversial dam in north-eastern Thailand.

Likewise, the government ran into local opposition in the south over the construction of the Thai-Malaysian gas pipeline. It followed protests by the affected communities over the harsh measures used by the police in December last year to quell a demonstration.

But besides that, warnings in the press that the government could face public outrage amounted to nothing.

A typical example was the pitch made by the government’s critics in August that the Thaksin administration could face a political storm due to the manner in which it rushed through an anti-terrorism law – and sidestepped parliament to get it in place.

Yet Thailand has a rich record of a vibrant protest movement and public activism in challenging leaders, be they military dictators or prime ministers elected at the polls.

October 1973, for instance, was a defining moment, when student leaders succeeded in bringing close to half a million people on the streets to oppose the military government of the day. May 1992 saw a similar uprising of pro-democracy advocates. Both were bloody. Many were killed or wounded.

This spirit of political activism that was kept alive during the 1990s by a crusading NGO movement was even acknowledged as a need for the country’s political health by the framers of Thailand’s 1997 constitution.

So what is behind this sea change? One Thai political scientist sees the lack of a protest culture as proof of the overwhelming popular support the prime minister enjoys. After all, Thaksin and his party won an unprecedented majority at the 2001 elections and has kept public approval ratings.

”The public sees the government as succeeding in its policies. Thaksin appears to have cast a spell over the Thai public as a leader who can deliver,” Thitinan Pongsudhirak of Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University told IPS.

The lack of protest also shows that the public does not have an alternative to place their faith in. ”This lack of an alternative has been made more acute by the way the government has controlled the media and dominated the parliament and most of the country’s political environment,” he added.

According to another observer, it does not help that the traditional sources of leadership for public protests – the NGOs – are under tremendous pressure from the government. ”The people’s movement is in disarray because of the power Thaksin has been able to wield,” said David Streckfuss, a U.S. academic specialising in Thai political culture.

Added to that is the lack of initiative by the opposition in parliament, the Democrat Party, added Streckfuss. ”The Democrats are not known for hitting the streets. They only tend to make obligatory sounds of protest.”

Thus for Sunai, the human rights activist, the prevailing pattern is paving the way for ”Thaksin to be a dictator”. But it will be different from the past, he adds, since ”Thaksin has convinced the public that he can deliver on his promises, unlike the dictators of the past.”