Open up discussion to prevent politicisation of the monarchy
Thailand has become the first country in the world to have set unique conditions for an election campaign: banning all discussion of the revered monarchy.
Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva immediately gave his full support to the initiative of the EC as Thailand is gearing up for what is expected to be a closely fought election to be held by early July. Meanwhile, Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha made his position clear: defending the monarchy is the military's top priority. He said that he saw no justification for certain individuals to try and fault His Majesty the King, adding that politicians should not allow their political rivalry to spiral out of control and tarnish the monarchy.The Election Commission (EC) announced this month that debate about the role of the royals would be prohibited, to prevent the politicisation of the institution. But until now, it has yet to reveal the exact scope of the new rules.
But analysts see the ban as redundant, since the monarchy is already protected under the Thai Criminal Code, elaborated in Article 112: "Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years."
While there are no accurate figures on how many people have been charged under the country's lese-majeste laws, recent estimates show that there have been more than 300 cases since the 2006 coup.
Central to this delicate issue are two key considerations.
First, if the Thai authorities really want to forbid all discussion about the monarchy and to stop the politicisation of the institution, then the ban must not only be applied to politicians and political parties, and certainly not only during the election period. This is because the debate about the monarchy, although still a strictly taboo subject, is no longer confined within the domain of formal politics. Referring to the royal institution seems to serve a variety of interests for many people, both state and non-state actors.
The Thai ambassador to Singapore, for example, said in 2006 to diplomats who worked in the embassy, "If you criticise me, this can be regarded as you criticising the King, since I am the representative of His Majesty."
This exemplified how the monarchy can be exploited to preserve the power position of an individual. Surely the Thai ambassador was not the first person who has taken advantage of the much-respected institution for his own ends.
Even before the downfall of Thaksin Shinawatra, the yellow-shirted People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) kept on politicising the monarchy, using numerous royal symbols, the yellow colour and the portraits of the King, to justify its anti-Thaksin stance. The PAD came up with many slogans, such as "Fight for the King", in order to undermine its opponents. The Thai authorities, at the time, refused to perceive it as an act of politicisation. Indeed, the military was implicitly supportive of the PAD. The tanks that rolled out onto the streets on September 19, 2006 were decorated with yellow ribbons.
The royalists would explain this away as an outpouring of love for the King. Critics believed it was another kind of tactic designed to politicise the monarchy and to legitimise some of the behaviour of the PAD and its backers in the Army.
So, here is the question: For those who claim to protect the monarchy, are they actually protecting their own interests?
If this is the case, should they too be charged with lese majeste for politicising the monarchy? The bigger irony is that the self-proclaimed defenders of the monarchy are operating outside formal politics. Therefore, the ban endorsed by the EC will not guarantee if the issue of the monarchy will be totally left out during this election campaign.
Second, Thais must ask themselves if their beloved institution can really detach itself from political life. The monarchy is a part of the Thai national identity. The King sits at the apex of the Thai political structure, as a moral authority when the nation is in crisis and a unifying force in an age of great political divide. The future of the royal institution will determine the future of Thai politics. The two entities have been and are closely intertwined. Separating them is therefore not just unnatural but indeed impossible.
Based on this fact, perhaps an open debate and discussion, rather than a prohibition, would likely ensure that the monarchy will not be politicised.
Why should Thais not be allowed to talk about the King for whom they have the greatest love and respect? A number of leading scholars in Thailand have already begun this process. But they are struggling to enlighten some ultra-conservatives who claim that discussing the monarchy is an exclusive business of their own.
Thailand is moving slowly toward becoming a mature democratic country. Certainly, the palace must have a keen interest in the success of Thailand in achieving its goals. Defenders of the monarchy will need to understand that a democratic society consists of those with different ideas of politics. Putting them in a "box of conformity" will not create a healthy environment. Thus, the ban on discussion of the monarchy will not change the minds of some politicians as they look at the monarchy and its position in Thai politics.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a former diplomat, is a visiting lecturer at the Department of Political Science, National University of Singapore.
No comments:
Post a Comment