Shortly after political unrest rocked Thailand yet again in April, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva quietly transferred several senior military officers who were classmates of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra at the Armed Forces Preparatory School to inactive posts. The general public has interpreted the government’s actions as a thinly veiled attempt to eradicate Thaksin’s remaining allies from the country’s political scene. This military reshuffle should come as no surprise, considering the skepticism that has arisen surrounding the military’s response to the April protests. While the military ultimately played an instrumental role in quelling the political violence that shook the nation for three weeks, their loyalty to the government was questioned at various times. These most recent events highlight one of Thailand’s most persistent and troubling rule of law issues: the continued lack of civilian control over the security sector and debilitating impact of this phenomenon on reform efforts.
Thailand’s most recent political chaos erupted when the red-shirted supporters of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), a movement that is spearheaded by the self-exiled Thaksin, charged the resort where an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) meeting was to be held, assailed Abhisit’s offices, home, and car, and seized control of a large area in Bangkok’s government district, clashing with adherents of the pro-Abhisit People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) at various points along the way. As the New York Times explains, the fact that Thaksin’s supporters were able to overrun security forces at the easily-protected location of the Asean summit, among other places, raised questions about the military’s allegiance to the Abhisit government. In addition, PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul has accused Thaksin's military allies of carrying out an assassination attempt against him on April 17. It has been rumored that Thaksin still has several loyal allies within the military, and the accusations and peculiarities noted above fueled widespread rumors of a possible Thaksin-orchestrated military coup throughout the protests. It is important to note that the security forces eventually contained the violence by surrounding the main protest camp. In response to this, however, UDD protestors accused the military forces of discriminating against them in favor of the PAD, pointing out the fact that military forces failed to use emergency powers to put an end to the PAD’s occupation of Bangkok’s airport last year, which was seemingly a greater security threat. In any case, these events demonstrate that the subordination of the military forces to civilian rule remains subject to constant questioning, while the professional, politically impartial nature of the military is extremely suspect.
As the 2007 Countries at the Crossroads Report explains, the Thai military and police forces have played an influential and oftentimes deplorable role in the country’s political history. The military has traditionally assumed the role of veto player in Thai politics. Due to the power wielded by Thailand’s military institution, the success of any political regime has been largely determined by military judgment; in short, military approval has translated into political success while disapproval has led to failure, oftentimes in the form of a military-led overthrow. The military’s instrumental role in this process is largely tied to its strong relationship with Thailand’s monarchy. Over the course of Thailand’s history, the two institutions have oftentimes worked together to guide or force Thailand’s political trajectory in their desired direction. From 1932-1992, the military played a direct role in the country’s political process by staging numerous coups, and the security forces retained a prominent position during the rule of Thaksin, with whom they were strongly allied. During his reign, Thaksin, a former police officer, awarded his cronies with key security posts in order to consolidate his control over the security sector and the country. Later on, however, members of the military directly interfered in Thailand’s democratic process yet again by carrying out a coup against Thaksin and installing a former army commander as prime minister. After ruling the country for 15 months following the coup, the military returned to the barracks, although it has continued to play a central role in Thai politics from outside. In fact, Abhisit was propelled to his current position as prime minister in part due to the military’s support.
In many ways, the military’s perennial independence from the government can be easily understood. Thailand has been plagued by political instability for years. Since 2006, the country has been ruled by four different prime ministers, one of whom was a former military commander and two of whom were forced from office for violating provisions of the Constitution. As such, for the military, allegiance to any of these short-lived, unsteady governments has proved to be both unnecessary and imprudent. Regardless of this fact, however, the military’s power and politicization has had decidedly negative consequences for governance. First, in addition to wreaking havoc on the electoral process, it has constituted a major impediment to the implementation of much-needed political reforms. As the 2008 Freedom in the World Report notes, it has often been quite difficult for civilian leaders to enact reforms that in any way affect the military’s privileged position and to address some of the remaining repressive laws that were set in place during the recent period of military rule. In other cases, military-fueled unrest has been responsible for foiling plans for reform. For example, since Abhisit’s election in December of 2008, his reform agenda, which is rooted in the modification of the largely undemocratic constitution, has been rendered impossible to implement by turmoil that has been at least partly exacerbated by Thaksin’s manipulation of the security sector. As the Economist explains, Thaksin counted on several members of the security forces, who for the most part belong to the same classes as the UDD protestors and have demonstrated their partiality towards Thaksin in the past, to abandon Abhisit during the protest.
Secondly, military power has also blocked Abhisit, along with other past prime ministers, from addressing the numerous allegations accusing members of the security forces of committing human rights abuses. Abhisit is in many ways dependent upon the military due to the institution’s political role. Without the military’s support, Abhisit’s position as prime minister would likely become untenable. Thus, appeasing the military is essential. Unfortunately, this situation has seriously negative consequences for rule of law. Over the years, the power of the security forces has provided its members with immunity from judicial prosecution, which has allowed them to commit flagrant human rights violations without punishment. One of the military’s most brutal campaigns was carried out during Thaksin’s 2003 war on drugs. As Human Rights Watch reports, security forces committed an extraordinarily large number of arbitrary killings during this war. In addition, as Amnesty International reports, the military has committed human rights violations including torture throughout the counter-insurgency campaign it has carried out since 2004. Unfortunately, these abuses continue today. The State Department’s 2008 Human Rights Report revealed that there were several allegations of torture, extrajudicial killings, and arbitrary arrest being committed by security forces, especially during counter- insurgency efforts. Most recently, security forces have been accused of beating refugees from a minority Muslim group in Myanmar and subsequently casting them out to sea without supplies. While the government has investigated some of these instances, members of the security forces have not been prosecuted for their actions thus far. While Abhisit has promised to address this culture of impunity surrounding military abuses, it is extremely unlikely that he will risk upsetting the military members upon whose support his position depends.
Thus, the lamentable lack of civilian control over the military has had numerous and varied negative effects on governance. Unfortunately, until the current political crisis between anti- and pro-Thaksin factions is resolved, the chances of consolidating civilian control and depoliticizing the military are slim to none. While Thailand’s political situation remains unstable, the military will continue to defy civilian power and exert its influence in myriad ways. As an upshot, the military will retain its ability to commit abuses with impunity.
Photo Credit: Flickr user interactimages
