Questions on the Thai coup

When the Prime Minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra, received confirmation that the army back home was moving against his government, he wasted no time in issuing a state of emergency.

Having left his native country to address the United Nations in New York, his opponents in the military saw this as the opportunity they had been waiting for. As troops poured into Bangkok, they met with no resistance and were even hailed as heroes and liberators on the streets, despite the fact they were there to remove a government the Thai people had elected not once, not twice, but three times.

The wide scale support for the overthrow of the elected government raises a number of important questions. What could have transpired in the eyes of the average citizen for Prime Minister Thaksin to go from a politician worthy of his vote, to a hateful and widely cursed oligarch, where even military rule is preferable compared to the continuation of his term in office? Granted, Thaksin only won a third term when an emergency election was called in the face of massive protests and the opposition proceeded to boycott the vote, but still the question remains.

Often immensely unpopular political parties are elected all over the world in preference to what people may view as an even worse alternative. A kind of "anyone but them" mentality sets in; with people voting strategically in order to put in power what may be considered the "lesser of two evils". Thaksin may have been seen as corrupt, he may have been seen as out of for his own business interests and he may have been seen as self absorbed and egotistical, but perhaps many viewed him as a preferable choice compared to other political factions on offer.

Just as some US citizens think they have no other choice and so vote for a democratic party they disagree with on many points just to stand against a Republican party they despise, or the British voting Labour in order to avoid a repeat of Tory rule, the practice of "strategic voting" may be common to many nations that practice universal suffrage. In that sense, a sudden and radical change such as an armed taking of power may have been exciting, perhaps even desirable. When the political climate is widely seen to have become stagnant and ineffective, a sudden change and sweeping away of the old order could be hailed as progressive by a disillusioned and cynical electorate.

Having said that, it would appear there is a definite schism between town and country in Thailand. The Prime Minister was strongly backed by the rural workers and peasantry, who approved of his populist policies. His main opponents seem to have resided in the cities, and consisted largely of intellectuals, the financial "elite" and of course many army officers.

The formal head of the armed forces, General Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, cites such a schism as one of the main reasons behind his hasty actions in seizing power, claiming to have feared that to let the political crisis afflicting the nation to last any longer would have led to violence between supporters of the government and advocates of change.

Perhaps knowing the extent of the Prime Ministers support in the countryside, the General happily accepted the approval of the nation's monarch, King Bhumibol. Having remained on the throne for sixty years, Bhumibol is widely loved by the rural populace for his alleged work in alleviating the suffering of the poor among their communities.

Indeed, the General claims that they seized power "in the name of the King" and armoured vehicles entering the capital on the night of the coup were seen displaying bright yellow ribbons, yellow being a colour associated with the Thai monarchy.

Then again, there may be yet more reasons for the common acquiescence that was displayed in the face of the military intervention. Thailand has a history of armed coups, in fact there have been 23 coup attempts by the military in the past 74 years, which may have caused such things to become ingrained in the political fabric of the nation's internal dealings.

In the west, where the existence of varying forms of democracy is considered stable, even the prospect of the military attempting to dictate government policy in any way is alarming, even repellent. Elsewhere, where universal suffrage is more of a novel concept than an enduring reality, intrigue, upheaval, and sudden transfers of power can appear more the norm.