One can't precisely applaud the court judgment in Bangkok on Friday by which Thaksin Shinawatra was acquitted of corruption charges relating to his conduct while serving in a previous government. Even the Thai prime minister admitted to the events in question, if not his responsibility for them.
But I may as well sigh my sighs of relief straight away. It is a hard call: Whatever the verdict handed down by Thailand's Constitutional Court, neither outcome would have arrived without its costs. On balance, however, Thailand is better off with this highly popular and clearly capable leader in office rather than on the sidelines shouting onto the field like a frustrated football coach.
It is little surprise that the Stock Exchange of Thailand Index popped more than 2 percent in the brief interval between the judges' ruling and the end of trading, closing up over 4 percent on the day; turnover advanced to 10.7 billion baht (US$236 million), a better than 60 percent increase on the year's daily average.
While the rally reflected the sudden end to months of mounting tension over Thaksin's fate, it also suggested something larger: Top to bottom in Thailand, there seems to be a widespread assumption that what we're now calling "Thaksinomics" offers enough vision and direction to be worth trying.
"Today the clouds of uncertainty have left Thailand," Thaksin said after the ruling was announced, "which makes the country hopeful and determined to leap forward." That's about it, in my view. Thaksin's political survival comes with problems, but hope and determination are what Thais need just now, and the tycoon-turned-populist-politician, elected in January by an immense majority, is in a position to inspire both.
Opposition politicians, reformists and democratic activists were volubly critical of the 8-to-7 ruling by a panel of the nation's highest judges. And they have a strong case. Thaksin acknowledged that his chauffeur, security guards and maids all held rather considerable stock portfolios while he served as Cabinet minister in the 1990s. Hard to see how the judiciary found its way to deciding, as Thaksin claimed, that this was not deliberate.
Given the amount of political pressure the judges faced in the days before their ruling, there's no arguing the point: Thailand's advance toward democratic institutions and the rule of law is essential, and this is a setback for both the National Counter-Corruption Commission and the reform constitution of 1997 under which it was set up.
But is there any arguing that Thaksin's removal from office, which would have followed a guilty finding, would have been even more damaging for Thailand? I don't think so. A less-than-forthright judicial decision must be regretted, but bad court verdicts don't generally sink democracies -- not the way coups or the absence of leadership do.
Americans, to take an obvious example, now have a president who sits in office by way of another bad court verdict. They are surviving it, if not altogether happily.
It is cold comfort, but those critical of Thaksin's acquittal are now left to measure Thai democracy's progress by the number and volume of their own voices.
Thaksin's conduct represents an undesirable aspect of Thailand's past, and Thais are to be commended for repudiating it.
At the same time, ditching assets in odd places has long been something like business as usual in Thailand; it is certainly not a practice that distinguishes Thaksin from many of his peers in the business and political communities.
RSS