From the Guardian:
In recent months, the F-word has been gaining currency in Thailand: observers are increasingly using "fascist" to describe the goals and methods of those determined to bring down the elected government, which is clinging to power despite a series of blows from its opponents in the courts and on the streets.
The army's declaration of martial law in the early hours of Tuesday – without consulting the government – further undermines the embattled administration and the kingdom's fragile democracy. Under the Martial Law Act of 1914, military commanders now have wide-ranging powers to detain suspects, censor the media, impose curfews and prohibit public gatherings.
Fourteen television stations have been taken off the air, and theBangkok Post reported on Wednesday that the military was "restricting comments on TV and in the print media by prohibiting remarks that could confuse society or provoke violence". There were also reports that books on Thai politics had been taken off the shelves at some shops.
This was a clearly a coup in all but name, and it was greeted with deep concern by the international community. As Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch said, "Thailand's friends in the world's capitals should make it clear that they expect this de facto coup to be reversed immediately."
The causes of the bitter conflict tearing Thailand apart are complex, and civil war remains a strong possibility. The army justified the imposition of martial law by claiming it was necessary to restore order amid heightened tensions and fears that rival groups would clash in the streets.
For the past six months, the former deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban has led protests aimed at unseating the Pheu Thai government, which won a 2011 election observers said was largely free and fair.
In February, it won another election, which was boycotted by the opposition Democrat party while Suthep's thugs blocked polling stations. The inept, elitist and misnamed Democrats, led by the Eton- and Oxford-educated Abhisit Vejjajiva, appear to have given up on parliamentary democracy altogether.
Lots to unpack here - and it's worth thinking about this in terms of Kirkpatrick's essay. I'm drawn to the comment that a former official refused to accept the results of an election, which led to the instability that the military used to justify its action. I'm no expert on Thai politics, but do political participants in Thailand accept their own constitutional system? Opposition members seem to not wish to abide by electoral rules.
For background:
- Wikipedia: Coup d'eta.
- Wikipedia: Thailand.
