Student protests erupted at dozens of Thai colleges and high schools this week in the wake of the dissolution of a popular opposition party. The demonstrations have escalated into wider criticism of the authoritarian government. The protests recall past demonstrations that military and government leaders have mishandled, leading to deaths and government overthrows.
Student protest at Thammasat University, the site of protests that led to government downfalls
Opposition party banned
Future Forward Party election poster
The fuse was lit by the court-ordered dissolution of the Future Forward Party, the country’s second largest opposition party. Future Forward articulated policies that garnered more than 6 million votes, many from young voters, in last year’s election. The court ruled the party deserved punishment because it accepted a loan from its wealthy founder, 41-year-old Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit. No action, however, was taken against other political parties believed to have taken loans.
The pattern of dissolving opposition parties
Over the past 15 years Thai courts have dissolved four political parties – all of them opposed to the authoritarian military establishment behind the current Thai government. The justifications vary, but no pro-military party has ever been banned. On the eve of elections last year, the opposition Thai Raksa Chart Party was banned for nominating a member of the Thai royal family as its candidate for prime minister. None of the justifications for party dissolution come anywhere near the European Community standard that parties should be banned only if they advocate or undertake violence.
The latest student protests have extended to all parts of the country and included schools considered elite and conservative. Apparently aware of past government mishandling of student protests, the police have not yet arrested any protesters, but they warned that violators of assembly laws may be prosecuted later.
Past protests
In October 1973, the arrest of activists calling on the military dictatorship to fulfill long-delayed promises of a democratic constitution, turned small protests into a nation-wide wave of anger against the government. Violent military attempts to suppress the demonstrations escalated the protests, leading to the downfall of the ruling generals who fled the country.
Three years later, the failure of security forces to control right-wing violence against student demonstrators led to a military coup. In 1992, the military used force to break up demonstrations against an army leader becoming prime minister. The military’s harsh action, causing at least 52 deaths and hundreds of injuries, ended in the collapse of the government and new elections.
Troops attack protesters in May, 1992, leading to the collapse of the government
Tough military action against protesters in 2010 led to at least 80 civilian deaths and later to a devastating election loss by the ruling pro-military political party. Conservative, pro-military protests undermined the elected government in 2014 and led to a coup d’etat.
So, history shows the military would be wise to treat the student demonstrations with great care.
The prime minister’s advantages
A key consideration will be preventing the demonstrations from opening cracks in the coalition of conservatives, royalists, military leaders and business people supporting Prime Minister Gen. Prayut Chan-O-Cha. The general, who led the military coup that overthrew an elected government in 2014, has benefited from the party bans and the 2017 constitution that allows the military to hand-pick 200 of the 250 members of the supposedly non-partisan senate. Prayut’s five years of unlimited power following the coup also gave him influence over the selection of the judges who have repeatedly ruled against his political opponents. Those judgments, often contrary to international practice and Thai precedent, are creating the impression that the law in Thailand is becoming a tool of political control.
All these advantages mean Prayut’s government controls the legislative, administrative and legal branches of the government. He demonstrated his control this week as he easily survived a vote of no confidence in the Parliament.
Opponents therefore may see little hope for parliamentary or legal means to challenge the government. The outbreak of protests is the unsurprising result.
Preserving the interests of government backers
The government’s handling of the on-going protests will be critical for its short-term survival. History shows that protests alone may not overthrow a government, but if the government fails to protect the interests of military officers or maintain the support of business and the middle class, it becomes vulnerable.
The 1973 protests succeeded because the dictators failed to deal with dissatisfaction within the army at their long refusal to retire from active military posts. The dictatorship collapsed when the army commander refused to obey government orders to send more troops to the capital to crush dissent.
The 1992 protests led to new elections because the military lost the support of business people and the conservative middle class. The Future Forward Party is now dissolved, but Thanathorn and fellow party founders have pledged to push for change under a new organization, the Future Forward Committee. The committee has the funds, the social media savvy and the popular dissatisfaction needed to organize protests against the government and the military.
The government has responded with a variety of charges that could lead to prison sentences for Committee members, but it must be wary of convictions that only energize larger protests. In any case, Future Forward’s attacks on military privilege have already led to responses that could open cracks in army backing.
Prime Minister Prayut speaks in Parliament
Responding to attacks from Future Forward, Prime Minister Prayut promised to cut the unusually high number of generals in half over the next eight years. Whether or not he keeps that promise, it may already be creating questions in the minds of ranking officers.
A mass shooting by a disgruntled soldier that killed 29 people this month led to promises to improve treatment of low-ranking soldiers and cut down on shady business activities by serving military officers. If carried out, such reforms would mean some officers would lose significant income.
Questions raised over retired generals continuing to live for free in sometimes luxurious military housing have put pressure on the army commander to kick retired officers out of their tax-payer-funded homes. According to army regulations such housing is reserved for serving officers. One of the army retirees living in army housing is Prayut himself, but he, like other generals have claimed exemption from the regulations because they are “serving society.”
The dilemma for the government is that moves to respond to justified public concerns about military privilege may undercut Prayut’s military support. Refusing to respond, or failing to fulfill promises of reform, however, could turn not just youth, but more of the middle class against the regime, especially if the economy worsens.
Economic and public health threats
The Thai economy has been in decline since the latest Prayut government took power, leading to questions about government economic management ability. The threat of the Covid-19 virus and dangerous air pollution have added to the economic problems and created nationwide health worries.
The government and the military have great powers and they may be able to wield those powers cleverly to allow the students to harmlessly blow off steam. Hopefully, the government will improve its performance against the economic and public health threats.
But even such success does not guarantee future dominance. The protests this week show that the government has alienated Thailand’s educated youth who aspire to a more open society.
It may rule the present, but it may already have lost the future.