Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Headlines, Human Rights

THAILAND: ‘Judicial Revolution’ Changing Political Landscape

Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK, Jul 9 2008 (IPS) - Several rulings handed down by Thai courts recently suggest that the country’s political landscape is being altered by the judiciary. Some are calling it a ‘’judicial revolution’’.

It comes as Thailand goes through a rocky period, with many asking if the government of Prime Minster Samak Sundaravej, elected late-December, will survive. In parliament, the Samak administration came in for trenchant criticism by the opposition Democrat Party during a parliamentary session in June, while the independent press has given the government little respite from a regular pummelling of critical stories and commentary.

The street has been as hostile, too. Since late May, an anti-government group, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), has held daily protests in a historic part of Bangkok to expose the many flaws of the alliance that Samak heads. These protests, which have attracted thousands, scored a symbolic victory by breaking through police ranks in late June to block Government House, the seat of executive power, for days.

Yet neither the opposition, the press nor the PAD has shaken the government in the way the judiciary has with its recent verdicts. On Tuesday, the division of the Supreme Court that looks into election malpractice ruled against the former speaker of the parliament, Yongyuth Tiyapairat, for electoral fraud. The punishment for the offence is political rights being revoked and a ban from politics for five years.

But Thai law does not stop with that, since Yongyuth is a former deputy leader of the People Power Party (PPP), which is the dominant partner in the coalition government that Samak heads. In Thailand, an entire political party can be banned if an executive of the party is found guilty of committing electoral fraud.

On the same day, the Constitutional Court ruled that Foreign Minister Noppadorn Pattama had broken the law over the joint communique Thailand signed with Cambodia to pave the way for disputed ancient Hindu temple on the Cambodian side of the Thai-Cambodian border to be recognised as a World Heritage site. The government failed to place this issue before parliament, for scrutiny, the nine-member bench ruled in an 8-1 verdict.

On Jul. 4, the Supreme Court barred the country’s former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, from leaving the country due to alleged corruption and tax evasion cases involving him and his wife currently before the courts. The twice-elected Thaksin, who was driven from power in a September 2006 military coup, remains a key, behind-the-scenes figure of the ruling PPP.

Other cases that could hurt the government are due to be heard later this month. In the dock are Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee, Labour Minister Uraiwan Thienthong and Deputy Transport Minister Anurak Jureemas. The PAD, however, may have little to cheer, after a lower court ruled last week against its demonstrators permanently blocking streets to hold its rallies.

Little wonder why a new expression has been coined and is being advanced within academic and media circles here to describe the judiciary. ‘’We are witnessing a new trend involving the judiciary. This month’s cases are the latest. It is being called a ‘judicial revolution’,’’ says Thanet Aphornsuvan, a historian and dean of the liberal arts faculty at Bangkok’s Thammasat University. ‘’The courts are playing a more decisive role in politics than before.’’

The immediate beneficiary will be the country’s nascent, struggling democracy, Thanet explained in an interview. ‘’The judiciary is helping to strengthen the checks of executive power for the good of our democracy. The public is welcoming the presence of the judiciary in our political struggle.’’

The manner in which the courts have taken on sensitive cases and delivered verdicts against the powerful has even shaped the way Thai politics is being scrutinised in universities. ‘’This shows that Thai people will have to rely more and more on the courts to resolve political problems. This is creating new concepts in Thai politics,’’ Siripan Nogsuan, a political scientist and Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, said at a recent seminar under the theme, ‘Crisis, Brinkmanship and Stalemate: What Next for Thailand?’

The excitement about a judiciary with a backbone is understandable in light of how the courts have been viewed in this South-east Asian country over the last decades. ‘’There has been a long-standing belief that courts are so corrupt, so biased, that people had no faith in going to them,’’ says David Streckfuss, an U.S. academic specialising in Thai political culture.

On the political front, too, the superior courts in the past did not stand up to power, when Thailand was under the grip of its many military dictators. ‘’In the 1950s, the courts were happy to justify coups and legitimised the laws introduced by the military dictators that undermined the very laws the judges were supposed to defend,’’ Streckfuss told IPS. ‘’The courts were not taking cases to determine standards and the rule of law, making the government accountable.’’

But new legal mechanisms, which emerged out of a 1997 constitution, the country’s 17th charter, and a seemingly more confident judiciary during Thaksin’s first term as prime minister, from 2001-2005, combined to create a more vibrant judiciary.

Then came the April 2006 speech by the country’s revered monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej. He told the judges of the administrative and supreme courts to do their job to help resolve a political deadlock and growing tension on the streets. Within weeks, the constitutional court annulled the results of a controversial parliamentary election where the party Thaksin led won sufficient seats to create a one-party state.

‘’Until April 2006 there hadn’t been much awareness that the courts should and could play such a decisive role in the country’s politics,’’ says Streckfuss. ‘’The king’s speech directed the courts to be more active. And since then, the courts have been causing the government a lot of grief.’’

‘’The courts are emerging as a possible key entity to redefine the relationship between the people and the government,’’ says Thanet, the historian. ‘’What we have is a new power equation. Governments will have to face up to it.’’