One of the
most complex opposition movements of 2010 was that of the Thai ‘Red
Shirts’. In three articles Joe Gold sought to explain the context,
ongoing struggle and the repression which followed. This is the first.
by Joe Gold, 1st April 2010
What is going on in Thailand? What do the yellow and red shirt
movements represent? Leaders of the Red Shirts have been pressurising
Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to step down and call elections after
weeks of protests that have shaken the country. Here our correspondent
gives some background information to the conflict presently unfolding in
the country.
Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajaya. Photo by World Economic Forum/Monika Flückinger.Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajaya sleeps only three to five hours a night at the base of the Royal Guards 11
th
infantry regiment. Outside and all around the redshirts are sleeping.
It’s a slack time for the rice growers and they are in no hurry.
Parliament cannot meet as less than 100 members arrive for the sessions,
and the demonstrators play cat and mouse with the cabinet, sometimes
allowing it to meet to arrange negotiations and to avoid giving an
excuse for a military crackdown. With 3000 motorcycles and numerous
trucks the redshirts stop the city on a busy Saturday afternoon.
Press reports in Bangkok and abroad, skilfully manipulated, present a
picture of an opposition in decline, with support for Thaksin
Shinawatra being nothing but rent-a-crowd, that it had peaked last year,
and had fizzled out with the failure to stop the world Trade Conference
– and yet it continues. With 100,000 demonstrators heading for the
capital police claimed they were only expecting 10,000 and the next day
announced that demonstrators were drifting away and the number had gone
down to 90,000.
Tuesday, March 30, the anti-government “Red Shirt” protestors
rejected the prime minister’s offer of more talks, as these were seen as
merely a manoeuvre to avoid calling early elections. Thus the mass
protest rallies in Bangkok have continued.
The question that has to be asked is how is it possible that a mass
movement initially of poor farmers from Isan, the rural north of
Thailand, is showing such persistence and determination in support of a
politician Thaksin who started as the richest man in the country, went
on to enrich himself and his family through corrupt business activities
while in power and was overthrown in a military coup with royal consent
after mass protests by the ‘yellow shirts’?
In 2001 Thaksin won a landslide victory in the elections of that
year, becoming the country’s prime minister. He was also the first to
serve the full term of office. Thaksin went on to introduce a range of
policies to alleviate rural poverty which proved highly popular.
Thaksin, in typical populist fashion, leaned on the poor layers within
the population and carried through some small but significant reforms.
The 30 Bhat health service made hospital treatment a real possibility
for many and there was talk of advances in education and subsidies for
small farmers and low-interest village loans. Thailand’s impoverished,
mainly rural masses benefitted materially from Thaksin’s period in
office. This explains why his re-election in 2005 saw the highest voter
turnout in Thai history.
However, in September 2006, with allegations against him of tax
evasion, corruption, human rights abuses and so on, a military coup,
with the backing of the monarchy, was carried out which removed him from
office. Today’s
“Red Shirt” movement is made up of supporters of Thaksin, largely from
among the country’s rural and urban poor, that want to see him back in
office. Its leaders have portrayed the demonstrations as a struggle
between Thailand’s impoverished, mainly rural masses, but also urban
poor — who benefited from Thaksin policies— and a Bangkok-based wealthy
elite.
What we are witnessing now is essentially a split in the tiny ruling
elite which networks at the highest level in the army, the police, the
political life of the country, and controls much of the economy.
Thailand is as profoundly corrupt as any country in the world in its
obscene and conspicuous contrast between rich and poor, town and
countryside. The poorest 10% of the population consumes only 1.6% of
national wealth, while the richest 10% concentrates 33.7% of national
income in its hands.
Bangkok has the sky train, multi screen cinemas, vast glittering
shopping complexes and underground malls where you can pop in for the
best gold, gems and jewellery, designer clothes, celebrity sponsored
golf clubs or a new Ferrari, while village people live in grinding
poverty, often growing rice on tiny plots of land using a plough pulled
by water buffalo.
The seedy industries for which Thailand is well known have their origins in the class division between anmart (bureaucrats or aristocrats) and phrai,
or commoners and can be understood in the context of social conditions
and low status enjoyed by the poor farmers. The bar girls in Soi Cowboy
and older women in the sex industry appear undernourished compared to
the tourists on the beach in Pattaya. Nearly all are working to support
children who live with the grandmother in a village. The begging
industry is fully Dickensian with businessmen of the street leading
their captive cripples to prime sites to be artistically displayed
spreading out the frayed trouser legs with no leg inside, for example,
positioning a cute puppy in the arms of the beggar and studying from a
safe distance the emotional impact on Japanese tourists leaving the
Tokyu department store.
Pornographic DVDs are sold openly and even aggressively in certain
streets and electronic shopping plazas and it is impossible to search
for foreign visas without getting adverts for meetings with ladyboys.
Bangkok is no worse than the contents of an email spam folder but opened
up and brought to life. The paedophile element is also unmistakeable.
Even the Thai brides export industry has its roots in rural poverty.
It must be accepted that there can be genuine loving relationships
between foreign men and Thai women, and that some foreign men marry into
Thai extended families and it goes well for them. It cannot be denied,
however that only in Thailand would you expect to meet a newly released
grossly obese murderer from Australia drinking himself to death in a
bar, who has come to find a Thai woman because she would “not answer him
back”, or to come across a painfully shy and inarticulate farmer who
has never had a girlfriend and hopes for better luck in Thailand or a
man over 60 looking for a teenage girl. The outside world is literally
invited to use the country as a playground and exploit the poverty of
the ordinary people – just as the local ruling class has always done.
Some countries can maintain stability of a sort by living a lie.
Indonesia for example is the biggest Islamic country in the world and
95% of its people are Muslims, but when you start to add up the number
of Christians, Hindus Buddhists and animists and take into account that
it is illegal to have no religion or to have a belief not in the list of
seven approved religions, it is clear that non-Muslims are closer to
30% than 5%. Thailand has its own untruths which all must accept: the
country is united because there are no classes; all must be happy
because they are Buddhist and all Thais love the King (except for the
Muslims in the South and in small fishing villages who are not regarded
as Thais except when they demand political autonomy).
Protest outside the US embassy in March. Photo by adaptorplug.So
Thais supposedly love the king they say so and they stand for the
national anthem right to the end. They love the king as Russians loved
the Czar up to February 1917, or as Iranians loved the Shah before 1979 –
and then he was gone. We are supposed to believe that they love this
King even more because he was once a monk, because he leads a simple
life close to his people, because he is old and ill and because he
brought rain to the farmers. And they loved him most of all because he
gave them democracy… until of course he took that democracy away from
them.
Red shirts and yellow shirts compete in their displays of loyalty
but, expressed in silence for fear of imprisonment, the future of the
monarchy is in serious doubt. Thaksin and his allies won the last three
general elections but the results were set aside by the King and the
Army under pressure from the yellow shirt movement, said to represent
the middle class and urban elite in Bangkok. First Thaksin was forced to
call a new election, which he won, then he was persuaded by the King
personally to stand down but delayed the move and was overthrown in a
military coup supported by the Democrats. The king called for a rapid
return to democracy but Thaksin’s allies gained a majority. Then
followed an organized betrayal (comparable to the National Government of
Ramsay Macdonald in the UK in 1931 when Labour leaders crossed the
floor of the House following an appeal by the monarchy).
The last issue of The Economist was said to run an article
questioning the future of the monarchy and this has not been circulated
in Thailand. It is likely to focus on the issue of succession as the
heir is less loved than the King but in the long run the issue is not
the personality of the monarch but the limitations of a democracy which
is permitted as long as the right side wins. As in Nepal recently, the
Thai monarch’s position is in question. He has been seen more and more
using his constitutional powers to remove from office politicians not to
the liking of the elite, and in particular Thaksin who is seen by the
masses as having carried out some pro-poor policies. The demand for the
removal of the monarchy is clearly one that has to be taken up by the
movement.
So far the protests have been non-violent and the army have
controlled crowds without the use of force. There have been a few
provocative hand grenade attacks on government buildings by men with
military style haircuts but the spirit of Buddhism rules – for now. It
is also obvious from the swagger and arrogance of the military top brass
that they are prepared to drown the protests in blood as soon as they
calculate that they can win, but at present they are deterred by the
polls showing that 85% of people here want the crisis to be solved by
negotiation and there must be doubts about loyalty of the lower ranks.
Thaksin has played the class card, claiming to be the leader of the Phrai
despite his extreme wealth and extravagant lifestyle. In this way a
split within the ruling class, combined with an inability to rule in a
way that carries society forwards, has opened up the more fundamental
division between the oppressed and their oppressors. The rice farmers
are now touring Bangkok in motorcades appealing for support from the
pedlars, stall holders and the lower paid workers – and getting that
support. They also have the possibility of making a class appeal to the
lower ranks of the army, including many recruited from Isan and the
other rural areas.
The red shirts would win if there were a free and fair election and
now carry a great weight on their shoulders. Thailand fell so far behind
its neighbours Malaysia, Singapore and South Korea in a boom time that
any redistribution of wealth would not be sufficient to bring their
living standards up to a reasonable level. New wealth has to be created
in the economy and the labour theory of value tells us that all wealth
comes from a single source, socially necessary labour power. Work
creates value, in other words, but not just any work. It must be
unwasted, effective and efficient work, using current tools and
equipment, transport and communications with a skilled and educated
workforce.
The Thai elite failed to modernize the country during the decades of
unprecedented advances for capitalist production in Asia, and is less
likely to achieve much now that the world markets are returning to the
more normal pattern of booms, slumps and stagnation. The redshirts have
given small amounts of blood to be splattered on the steps of government
buildings and used by artists for a display to be wrapped around the
Victory monument. In this symbolic act they show an understanding that
the smiling face of a nice kind king looking down from the wall in every
building and the reassuring chants and chimes of the Buddhist monks are
no indication that the army can be trusted. If their campaign should
lose momentum temporarily there will be arrests followed by real
bloodshed and death.
However, it is also very clear that the underlying class
contradictions are what are fuelling the movement. The present regime
will not be able to hold the line for ever. As the movement from below
becomes stronger it is possible the campaign will bring back Thaksin.
Should the situation become like that in Nepal, the ruling elite may
even be forced to ditch the monarchy as a way of appeasing the masses.
The present leadership of the movement could be swept along or pushed
aside by the masses of poor farmers and low paid workers.
During the boom years of 2000 to 2008 the country averaged more than
4% GDP growth per year. This has served to strengthen the working class.
GDP per capita today stands at over $8000 per year, which although low
compared to the major advanced capitalist countries, is an indication of
the economic development the country has undergone in recent years. In
2009, however, GDP is estimated to have fallen by close to 3% as a
result of the worldwide economic recession that seriously affected the
country’s exports. This underlying economic crisis, serves to explain
also the present movement and also a spate of strikes over the past
period.
Out of Thailand’s 65 million population there is now a 36
million-strong labour force, but only 3% are organized in trade unions.
But that still makes over one million trade union members. Trade union
rights, however, are very limited. Even the US Department of State – not
the most worker friendly body in the world – has to admit that there is
“inadequate protection of worker rights” and also “forced labor and
child labor” in Thailand.
In spite of the limited trade union rights, Thailand has recently
witnessed important strikes. One such case was the months long protest
of workers against Body Fashion Thailand Co, a subsidiary of Triumph
International, which fired them last June. About 300 ex-workers occupied
the ground floor of the Ministry of Labour. Another recent example is
that of 2,000 Burmese female workers who ended a strike only after the
authorities located a relative of a worker, who had earlier been thought
to have been killed by security officers of the factory. At the
Ford-Mazda joint venture car manufacturing plant, workers recently came
out on strike for better pay and bonus terms. There was also an
important rail dispute in November of last year.
These are just a few examples of labour disputes, but they show that
the working class is a strong force within the country. Unfortunately,
the Thai working class does not have a voice of its own. In the past the
country had a powerful Communist Party and at one point it led the
second largest communist movement in mainland South-East Asia after
Vietnam with up to four million supporters in the 1970s. Due to the
demise of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and other factors, eventually
the party collapsed in the early 1990s. Since then, there has been no
real independent voice of the Thai workers and peasants.
What is required today is the building of a genuine party of the Thai
working class, one that is capable of intervening in the present
movement and placing the working class at the head of the people’s
protest. All the potential for such a party exists today in Thailand.
first published: www.marxist.com