| Submit your comments on this article |
| Southeast Asia |
| The moral enigma of a popular coup |
| 2006-09-25 |
| By CHAIWAT SATHA-ANAND The Sept 19 coup d'etat in Thailand is a great puzzle for many. It is difficult to understand, not so much in terms of why it happened, but why it is so popular. There are reports of people giving flowers and cold drinks to soldiers in the streets. In Chiang Mai, children would not stop bothering their teachers until they were taken to see the coup makers' tanks. In fact, according to one recent survey, 83% of Thais nationwide were in favour of the coup. Given the positive popular public reaction, one wonders if there is such a thing as a "good" or "peaceful" coup. I hope here to offer an explanation why so many common people and noted intellectuals are supporting this coup. Then we can look at the moral enigma, when the reasons for the coup can be accepted, but coups themselves as a means of political change are rejected. Finally, there is a sign of hope in Thai society's quiet effort to cope with the coup. For those in favour: Apart from the fact that the coup was staged without bloodshed in its successful attempt to oust Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, there are four reasons why it is favoured by many in Thai society. First, some believe the coup was staged to prevent the continuing conflict from sliding into violence, and possibly a civil war, between two armed groups, one supporting Thaksin and one opposing him. Conflicts in any society between people of different opinions, as well as between the state and ordinary people, are generally regarded as less dangerous than those between opposing armed forces _ both for the combatants and civilians. For those who saw the situation prior to Sept 19 as potentially leading toward violence, the coup could be supported on the grounds that it was a preventive measure.This has been a conflict between the military who finally decided to forcefully defend what they regard as sacred and the government of Mr Thaksin who, according to Kasian Tejapira, is an "elected capitalist absolutist". But a coup is wrong: If one believes the aim of the coup was to prevent the country from falling into a pit of violence, that the constitution was long dead, and that the Thaksin government was not democratic in the profound sense of the term, apart from the fact that it was elected by the majority, then the coup is morally acceptable. The moral enigma lies, however, with those who believe that these reasons are probably true and yet maintain that a coup d'etat is still morally wrong. I count myself among these. I would argue that a coup d'etat, despite the fact that it was staged non-violently and probably for a good cause, is wrong because of what it has done to the society that accepts it as right. Accepting or condoning a coup d'etat means accepting Mao's dictum that "power comes from the barrel of the gun" and that violence or the threat of violence is the final arbiter of political conflict, not the power of words or rational persuasion. Engaging in the moral dilemma is important on a meaningful journey on the road to democracy, which needs to be grounded on some basic ideals which include questioning the monopoly of "truth", the use of force to impose it on others and the gradual renewal of society as an energising ideal through free debates. In De Officiis, Cicero wrote that "for in exceptional circumstances that which is commonly held to be wrong is found on reflection not to be wrong". When it comes to the problem of violence, especially in Thai society, there seems to be a tendency to turn a state of exception, as suggested by Cicero, into a norm which would render the notions of right and wrong irrelevant. Though understandable, it is sad to see how popular this coup has become because accepting violent solutions to political problems could also be seen as a sign of despair. The moral cost of hopelessness in oneself and the inability of one's society to solve political problems peacefully needs to be seriously taken into account as the price a society has to pay for a popular coup. A sign of hope: Two days after the coup on 9/19, a young woman walked into my office. She said she had decided not to go to class because what has happened bothered her a great deal as a student of political science at Thammasat University. So she spent her time thinking in the library. In a soft voice, she politely told me that in response to the Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy's public invitation for written inputs from university students, she wrote a letter, using her real name, asking them — no, begging them — to respect the rights and liberty of those who might disagree with them and to treat those who might express their right to dissent peacefully without resorting to violence. She mentioned the brutal violence which had taken place in this land three decades ago and which has created a rift which cut deeply into the soul of the nation and has been so hard to heal. She used a piece of lined paper from her schoolbook, wrote it with a pencil in a language so simple that it shames me with her innocence and courage. I looked up at her bright young face and there saw hope for Thai society. The writer is with the Peace Information Centre, Foundation for Democracy and Development Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #5 I blame Simon Bolivar. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-09-25 10:33 |
| #4 Thailand's situation is a bit different from, say, Burma's or Indonesia's in that loyalty is to the king, not to the prime minister or even to the political system. It's a constitutional monarchy, but the king retains a veto power in the form of the military. Toxin was on the way out as soon as the king took a dislike to him. Bhumibol is on in years, and I have no idea whether the same will apply with his successor. I suspect it will, until they get a king who's disliked by the commons -- a Prince Charles, f'rinstance, or a King Gyanendra. At that point the consent of the governed will be withdrawn and power will swing to the civil government, probably in a one-way trip. |
| Posted by: Fred 2006-09-25 10:17 |
| #3 In fact, according to one recent survey, 83% of Thais nationwide were in favour of the coup. This has something to do with 'consent of the governed' written by that Jefferson guy. Attention, two bit self serving ego centric limelighting politicans and bureaucrats out there. Piss off enough people and all they have to do is just sit and watch the changing of the guard. The people don't have to raise in rebellion. They just giving up caring which crook in sitting on the seat of power. Errr...remember what the 'popularity rating' was for Congress, journalist, and the military? |
| Posted by: Ebbomoling Omiter6310 2006-09-25 09:01 |
| #2 I looked up at her bright young face and there saw hope for Thai society. But then I told her she better put her burka on and accept the fact that she would probably be marked for writing this letter and possibly be singled out for rape and torture if she didn't convert and find a husband to protect her. |
| Posted by: Flavitle Omart7450 2006-09-25 04:00 |
| #1 A coup is kind of like a Lays potato chip. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2006-09-25 01:00 |