- Thongchai Winichakul -

Part I.

One of Thammasat University’s political scientists offers one of the typical excuses for the coup that we have heard so far, that is, without the coup, bloodshed was likely to take place.

Apart from the coup, there were at least TWO, not one, more options to avoid the bloodshed. IF Thaksin’s opponents anticipated the bloodshed, and if they think that avoiding it is most important, there were two options, not including the coup, to abort it.

1. Thaksin should have stepped down, as many had called.

2. The People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) could have backed off instead of marching on the possible bloodshed.

The second option was equal to the first one, but aiming at the other side of the possible clash. To call only the first one, but the PAD itself pressed ahead despite foreseeable bloodshed, it was bloodthirsty. It is a premeditated clash. Several years ago Khamnoon Sitthisaman (of The Manager) and Phipob Thonghcai (one of the PAD leaders) accused me of this false for the October 6 massacre. Now it is their turn to explain.

In fact for the same reason I did not understand the weird analysis by the PAD several times before the coup, that if Thaksin did not step down, bloodshed could take place. All the PAD could have done to avoid such a tragedy was backing off. Had the PAD were an observer of a conflict between two other parties, it would have been fair for them to call for either one or both sides of the possible clash to step back. But in this case, they were one side of the possible clash, how could they demand and blame the other, but not themselves? If they sincerely want to abort the looming clash, all they could have done was backing off. They never did so. Like Thaksin, the PAD wanted to win so badly and above anything else. They had played all the cards but cannot lose. They did not care if their action were instigating bloodshed.

The blame for possible bloodshed therefore should go to both sides for refusing to back off.

The next issue is: which one was better to prevent bloodshed:-

A. The coup

B. Back off and not escalating the confrontation. This would have been one stone for two birds, to avoid the bloodshed and to avoid the coup that claims to prevent bloodshed.

Which one is more damaging to Thai democracy and society in the short and long terms: the coup or backing off? The answer to all the questions is back off, back off, and back off, if sincerely care about bloodshed.

If they anticipated the bloodshed, but still pressing ahead and with the hope for the coup to prevent the bloodshed … it was a horrible, dangerous and inexcusable decision—plain and simple—and no need to find excuse for the coup that they truly called for.

I have seen a story of Thaksin’s plan for a clash as the pretext for his coup. The story makes the coup group a savior. But if our memory is not too short, a story of assassination plot against people in the high place was circulated as an excuse for the Suchinda coup in 1991. Old soldier’s trick never dies. Unfortunately there are always credulous people who are ready to believe in order to justify their own actions that share the same goal with the coup.

One may wonder if I apply the above argument to reconsider the October 6 massacre, yes. The above argument is informed by the costly lessons from the past. Sorry if those lessons are lost; 30+ years of democratization are wasted. The coup and these excuses make my lost friends merely historical dust.

Part II.

Another typical excuse for the coup that we have heard in the past few days has been made by several intellectuals—the coup is a necessary evil, it is the only solution to solve the crisis.

If the crisis means the possible bloodshed, I have argued against such excuse in Part I. But if the evil or crisis means the vicious Thaksin regime and Thaksin himself who refused to fall, my argument against such excuse here.

Whose evil, necessary for whom, and whose only solution? The excuse shamelessly assumes that only Thaksin’s opponents matter in Thai democracy. Thaksin did not come to power by weapon. His election victories were valid. No significant irregularity that would change the results of his two landslide victories. Academics, including myself, can argue against his populist policies, his horrible handling of the crisis in the Malay Muslim region, and so on. But Thai people elected his party and the “Thaksin regime.”

Democracy anywhere in the world is never a rule of the educated, the smarter, the urban, or the better-informed. It is a rule by popular mandate. No matter if/ how ignorant people are, the elected government has the rights to rule. It is true that democracy does not mean only election. But election is THE ultimate and inviolable source of legitimacy to rule. The higher moral or good ethics is not. The higher education is not. The better access to information is not. Nor are weapons or any unelected aristocrats.

Democracy is never without corruption and abuses of power. Look how horrible of Bush government right now. Democracy does not mean the intellectual elite will always get what they think is right. On the contrary, in most democracies in the world, the poorly-informed majority wins. It has been like this in every democracy for hundred of years. THIS, not the coup, IS THE NECESSARY EVIL. Yet democracy grows as the results of the unwavering struggles within the bound of constitution and rule of law. This is the ONLY SOLUTION to establish a strong democracy. There is no other way.

Thaksin was evil only to his elitist opponents. The coup is necessary only for them who had failed to topple him before, even by undemocratic means. It is the only solution for these people who are desperate to win at any cost by any means. This excuse is shamelessly an elitist arrogance and prejudice that denies the rights of people who elected Thaksin as worthless and negligible. They are the majority of people but whose voices do not count.

This excuse is utterly anti-democratic. It is also very short-sighted and reckless.

Part III.

Another typical reason by the anti-Thaksin people that becomes a typical justification for the coup is that Thaksin government was so evil and could sink the country into the abyss. The coup is therefore a rescue.

Is Thaksin was really the worst crisis in the world, as the king put it and often quoted by Thaksin haters? Has anybody ever offer a substance to validate such an assessment? Is Thaksin regime as bad as Marcos, Suharto or the regime in Burma? Was the crisis so bad that it is about to take down Thailand into hell? The assessment of this kind is unavoidably subjective and debatable with no ending. The argument is therefore interpretive rather than empirical one.

As corrupt and abusive the Thaksin government was, it was not as bad as so many other dictatorial regimes in Thai history or in the world. There is no possible explanation why it deserves to be toppled by any undemocratic means. Thaksin opponents, including many academics, lost their sense of perspective and their good judgment because they were consumed by hatred.

My views have usually been discredited by the argument that I am far away, not understanding well what is going on in Thailand, never experienced the real thing, and so on. In this case, it is the contrary, that is, being too close can be a problem. Being too close to a crisis, too intimate to the trouble, hearing, talking about it days and nights for months, one can be consumed by it. If one does not have a very strong principled stance and strong mind, it is easy to lose a good judgment and lost a sense of perspective (how to understand it in historical term and how to compare it with other corrupt regimes). Being to close is not always good. Being further away is in fact not bad at all for the assessment of an evil in this case. At least it requires me less strength to see things more calmly.

One may argue that each crisis is particular and cannot be compared easily. I absolutely agree. For this reason, the rhetoric “worst crisis in the world” is meaningless. But the rhetoric has been powerful. Many academics, PAD leaders and the PAD propaganda machine used it as fact to misleading and scare people. Thaksin could be the worst only in their narrow world, in their narrow perspective of history, especially in their own mind that is already consumed by hatred. Was Thaksin government worse than the 30+ years of Suharto, the 20+ years of Marcos, and the 40+ years of military rule in Burma, all came to power by coups and bloodshed – therefore deserving a coup to topple him? Was his government worse than 16 years of Sarit-Thanom-Prapass and deserved a coup? NO WAY. Anti-Thaksin people, including many leading academics lost their perspective, and adherence to principles, because they are consumed by hatred.

I totally disagree with Ajarn Saneh Chamarik that the constitution was torn down by Thaksin before the coup. It was violated, ignored, and tampered with; probably similar to what Bush was doing now. But the constitution was still there to provide opportunities to fight the abusive regime. In fact many fights were successful and more were waging, thanks to the constitution. Saneh’s assessment and the like are misleading and exaggerated to justify the coup backhandedly.

In my view, moreover, Thaksin the Evil has been created by the opponents too far too much too long until they themselves are consumed and haunted by it. They DEHUMANIZED Thaksin so much—please do not forget how the dehumanization in October 6 that justified the killings—that they themselves were too scared to let the Evil live a day longer. The assessment of Thaksin among the anti-Thaksin people were overwhelmed by hatred but not enough head. Ajarn Prawase Wasi should have applied many things he preaches to himself and the PAD. Hatred and ignorance are two of the three main types of Tanha.

Thaksin’s control of media is a good example of being haunted by the one’s own exaggeration. Yes, he did interfered and tried to crush its opponent media. He tried to control the media-scape by all means. Such were abuses of power. But it was never able to control or manipulated to such extent that differing views were shut down. Critics were frustrated for being shut up but they were never being shut down. Anti-Thaksin publications were among the best selling titles. The Nation, Matichon, let alone the Manager and ASTV, were never closed down. Abuses of power and attempts to interfere with media are wrong and must be fought against. But Thaksin the Evil was not able to close our eyes, ears and mouths. The struggles against the interferences had been going on and could go on. The coup is not necessary. Who would dare to say that media freedom and freedom of expression with no fear is better under a coup regime? The coup is a reckless way out.

Thaksin was said to control the judiciary and other accountability system by money and fear until the system doesn’t work. For money, probably true. If true, it is a wrong-doing and he should be charged. Hope one does not say that the entire judiciary was bought out. If not earlier, moreover, in recent months the judiciary seemed working in favor of the opponents already, due to the royal intervention in April. Why was the coup needed?

As for fear, Thai judiciary has showed courage only occasionally in the past 74 years. Thaksin did not need to do much. Moreover, Thaksin’s regime of fear, if ever, was collapsing before the coup. That was why many were in his face in the shopping malls and street-sides. Despite that the PAD’s undemocratic means (such as M.7) failed to topple Thaksin, popular pressure had yielded some results. For what is the coup needed?

We must fight a wicked government, but not by wicked means. We must not fight a crime by committing another crime. We must not fight a demagogue by authoritarianism. As I have said so many times: bad + wrong will never result in any thing good or right. Down the hill it only goes.

Part IV.

The coup supporters have come up with an innovative excuse—this one is a good coup.

The excuse proposes that there is a good and a bad coup. Apart from the previous three reasons [1) avoid bloodshed, 2) necessary evil and only solution, 3) from the worst crisis of the world], there is one extra qualification for a good coup, that it is the unique situation of the crisis in Thailand that no other place has experienced.

This reasoning cannot be wrong, but it explains nothing. It doesn’t say how unique and in what ways such uniqueness justifies the necessity of the coup. It says nothing. It is a farce. Does it imply that Thai people do not deserve democracy?

In fact I have a very serious argument that the coup is not as much anti-Thaksin as being a royalist coup. This is perhaps the more important reason for a coup despite signs of weakening “Thaksin regime” before the coup. The coup is not as much about toppling Thaksin as to fulfill the royalists’ ulterior motive. (A full explanation of this ulterior motive will be explained in a separate article to be published in a foreign newspaper.)

If one thinks the royalist political dominance is good, then it is a good coup. But if one thinks it is not good, then it is a bad coup. It depends on one’s politics and ideology.

Epilogue.

George W Bush has been ridiculed around the world including by many Thai intellectuals. Bush deserves it. But the excuses for the coup as offered by its supporters, which include many big and small academics, are ultimately based on the same principle held by the Bush regime.

Bush administration has implemented the phone tapping operation secretly without the court’s permission. The US held “terrorist” prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Base without charges or trials for years. Now it tries to redefine the Geneva Convention regarding the enemy combatants. All of these disregards of laws and US constitution are done in the name of protecting the Americans and their freedom. Bush said many times that these measures are necessary for the protection of Americans and their freedom which are more important than anything else.

Anything else = rule of laws, constitution, judicial system, freedom, and democracy?

The bottom line is—the end justifies the means; fighting the crime by committing another crime. The US fights terrorism by terrorizing the world. They protect freedom by fear. They claim to fight for civilization, but they do so by uncivilization.

The Thai necessary evil and the only solution—the coup—is in fact not very unique after all. It is a kin to the thoughtless measures by the Bush administration and other regimes around the world. They are born of the same short-sighted and self-defeating principles. Needless to say, the “us or them” thinking is also scarily common among the Bushies and the opponents to Thaksin.

Those democratic people in the People Sector, including many leading academics, and George W. Bush whom they despise are not much different in this respect.

By the way, for those who think Thaksin is the worst crisis in the world and deserved to be ousted by a military coup, do you think how bad the Bush administration is? Don’t you think it creates much worse disasters throughout the world than Thaksin? Does Bush deserve a military coup or some drastic measures to get rid of him as a necessary evil and the only solution to rescue the world? Now you may understand how those “terrorists” think as well.

There is NO good excuse for the coup.

พิมพ์บทความ