Thailand's Struggle for Democracy

In November 1991, Gen. Suchinda Kraprayoon went to a temple in southern Thailand to consult with the spirits on the state of the country he now led by virtue of a military coup 10 months earlier. Announcing his arrival with the blast of 5,000 firecrackers, Suchinda was advised by the guardian of the temple to heed the popular demand for democratization in order to escape a more "fateful event." Suchinda's proclivity to use gunpowder to gain an audience was once again made clear seven months later when, indeed, the predicted "fateful event" occurred.

The Thai military's brutal attack on the pro-democracy demonstrations in Bangkok last May followed nearly a year of large demonstrations in the Thai capital against Suchinda's military regime. The military claimed that 53 people died when soldiers opened fire on the unarmed demonstrators rallying around Democracy Monument in central Bangkok. Witnesses and Thai non-governmental organizations put the number much higher, charging that as many as 300 protesters were killed, their bodies hauled off in military vehicles and cremated in an unknown location.

An uneasy compromise to the tragic confrontation between the demonstrators and the military came about with the intervention of Thailand's constitutional monarch. King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who used his great moral authority in the country to calm Suchinda and the leader of the opposition, Chamlong Srimuang, on national television. Gen. Suchinda resigned as prime minister and is thought to have fled the country. Former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun, who was appointed as Suchinda's interim successor, has the difficult task of restoring the country's image and economy, standing up to the still-powerful military, and holding clean elections in the next few months. Meanwhile, legislation is pending in the Thai Parliament that will lessen the role of the armed forces in the government.

The demonstrations in Thailand are the latest events of a greater movement for democracy that has been rising across Asia over the last several years. Beginning with the People Power revolution in the Philippines that brought Corazon Aquino to power in 1986, authoritarian regimes have faced major challenges in South Korea, Burma, and China, as well as smaller rebellions in Taiwan, Bangladesh, and Mongolia. As happened in China's Tiananmen Square in 1989 and in Burma in 1988, the brutal response of the Thai military shows that those who enforce their rule with violence are not quite ready to give in and retire quietly into the historical record.

The role of the United States is not insignificant in Asia's conflicts. Though the U.S. government has come out timidly in favor of greater democratization in the region, it must take much of the blame for the intransigence of the region's military regimes.

During the Cold War the United States used countries such as Thailand and the Philippines as its frontlines against the expansion of the communism in Southeast Asia. In this era, the U.S. government committed many of the same mistakes in the region as it did in other parts of the world, financing and arming the military institutions in "friendly" countries--to the exclusion of social and economic investments aimed at eradicating poverty and developing community-based alternatives to communism. Such investments could have been much more effective--and less deadly--in combating the feared domino effect in Asia.

THE ABSENCE OF a real communist threat in the region provides the Unites States--and Japan, which is now the largest foreign investor in Thailand--an opportunity to reconsider its support of the region's military regimes and to seek policies that increase broad-based political and economic participation. Yet it is evident that the United States has still not learned this lesson. In the midst of May's protests, a U.S. Army official met with a nervous Thai arms dealer to assure him that a shipment of American helicopters for the regime would be delivered on schedule.

Until the crackdown, the Thai economy was growing at 10 percent per year. This vigorous economic growth, among the fastest in the world, spawned the rapid creation of a middle class in Thailand and has given rise to unprecedented demands for education and democracy.

While the international media has portrayed the uprising as a "yuppie revolution," focusing on protesters with cellular phones and fax machines, in reality a broad spectrum of Thai society participated in the demonstrations, including merchants, students, slum dwellers, and the country's large number of non-governmental organizations.

The range of this popular participation makes it clear that the issue at stake is not so much the defense of new-found materialism, but the freedom to use this wealth in ways that are beneficial to the whole of Thai society--not just the sector that happens to be the best armed.

A counterpoint to the power of the military in Thailand is the legacy of nonviolence inherent in the country's Buddhist religion and culture. The presence of a deeply rooted nonviolent tradition can create new approaches to reconciliation between the Thai military and people.

Sulak Sivaraksa, a leading Thai Buddhist forced into exile last year, observed after earlier anti-military demonstrations, "[I] suspect that we are losing our sense of direction, our common sense that has got us through so many difficult periods in our history. However, I am convinced that we are not all that wicked, nor all that stupid. Siam has always found a way to get through."

Aaron Gallegos was outreach assistant of Sojourners when this article appeared.