From Thailand to Turkey to Ukraine, the relationship between ruling majorities and electoral minorities has become combustible — and is threatening to erode the legitimacy of democracy. The unfolding crisis in Bangkok — where a political minority has taken to the streets to bring down Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s democratically elected government — is a case in point.
Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party (PTP) won an outright majority in Thailand’s 2011 general election, gaining 265 MPs in the 500-member lower house. However, the opposition Democratic Party — which returned 159 MPs, mainly from Bangkok and southern Thailand — has been staging protests in the capital. The so-called “People’s Committee for Democratic Reform” — led by former Democratic Party MP Suthep Thaugsuban and supported by the Bangkok-based establishment — has effectively attempted to stage a coup.
The protests began when the government tried to enact amnesty legislation that would have overturned the conviction of former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra — Yingluck’s brother and the PTP’s founder, who was overthrown by the military in 2006 — on charges of corruption and abuse of power. (It would have also superseded the murder charges brought against the Democratic Party’s leader, former Thai prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.) However, Yingluck’s subsequent attempt to backtrack on the amnesty measure failed to mollify the opposition.
In fact, the street protests intensified, fueled by a new grievance. The Yingluck government had refused to accept the Constitutional Court’s ruling against a bill to change the Senate from a half-appointed to a fully elected chamber. The government asserted that the court did not have jurisdiction over constitutional amendments. The People’s Committee viewed this rejection as an attempt to pressure the king into countersigning the law — and thus as a threat to royal prerogatives and the king’s exalted role.
The People’s Committee’s position deserves explanation, if not agreement. Since the turn of the century, Thaksin’s party machines, powered by his populist policies, have overcome constant challenges — from both the military and the Constitutional Court — to beat the conservative-royalist Democrats in every election.
Opposition forces, fed up as much with Thaksin’s corrupt practices as with his longstanding popularity, have recently begun seizing government ministries and calling for a royally appointed government. If they succeed, PTP supporters will likely descend on Bangkok, much as they did in 2009 and 2010, after a “judicial coup” dissolved Thaksin’s People’s Power Party, the PTP’s predecessor, and the Democrats formed a coalition government. However, this time, the protesters will be even angrier, and the stakes will be much higher, because the monarchy’s role in Thailand’s electoral democracy will be called into question.
The mere plausibility of such an outcome underscores Thailand’s deep political polarization. The PTP’s supporters are happy with a system that grants them a political voice — indeed, predictable electoral majorities — and that safeguards their rights. However, the minority — which comprises up to two-fifths of the electorate — is at a loss. Its legitimacy and influence depend not on winning electoral majorities, but on its strong alliances with the military, bureaucracy and judiciary in defense of a traditional hierarchy that places the king at its apex.
Making matters worse, voters on both sides are tuning in only to views with which they agree, rather than attempting to understand and reconcile opposing arguments. Social media — the much-lauded catalyst of democratization in authoritarian countries — has exacerbated the trend toward polarization in Thailand, just as it has in other electoral democracies that are struggling with a widening majority-minority divide, like Turkey and Malaysia.
In emerging democracies, electoral minorities tend to be tied to the old establishment, and often oppose change led by popular upstarts. Feeling marginalized and resentful, they may turn to public platforms like social media and the streets to advance their causes and undermine their opponents’ authority.
The proliferation of information technology, together with the unprecedented popular participation that it has fueled, means that electoral minorities have a growing number of increasingly powerful tools at their disposal to organize movements aimed at paralyzing their countries’ governments and even shortening leaders’ terms in office. Indeed, with so much seemingly at stake, a four or five-year term may seem too long to wait for change.
However, while the right to a peaceful protest is critically important in a democracy, electoral minorities should not use endless demonstrations to take the political system hostage. In order to create a peaceful, stable and effective democratic system, electoral minorities must accept the ballot box as the arbiter of political legitimacy.
At the same time, majorities should not view an electoral victory as a license to act without regard for minority concerns. While the government must deliver for its constituents, it must also protect its opponents’ rights. To this end, Thailand urgently needs a new social contract that allows elected representatives to do their jobs, without marginalizing the establishment-based minority.
Increasingly complex majority-minority dynamics are shaping the democratization prospects of a number of countries, and could influence democracy’s durability as a system of government.
Thailand’s experience suggests that efforts to subvert the system by thwarting the will of the majority may ultimately be fruitless, though not before imposing extremely high costs on everyone.
Thitinan Pongsudhirak is a professor and director of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Political Science in Bangkok.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry