After four years of military board , the upcoming elections open the possibility of returning to a legitimacy that has been too often interrupted by coups d'état.

Thailand has known several coups d'état and attempts to return to democracy in its recent history. The military board that seized power in 2014 has called elections for March 24. The unsuccessful desire of King Maha Vajiralongkorn's sister to run for the prime minister's post has drawn global attention to a political system that fails to address the political aspirations of Thais. 

▲ Bangkok street scene [Pixabay].

article / María Martín Andrade

Thailand is one of the fastest developing ASEAN countries in economic terms. However, this progress is encountering a difficult obstacle: the political instability that the country has been dragging along since the beginning of the 20th century and that opens a new chapter now, in 2019, with the elections that will take place on March 24. These elections mark a before and after in recent Thai politics, after in 2014, General Prayut Chan-Ocha staged a coup d'état and became Prime Minister of Thailand heading the NCPOcommittee Nationalcommittee for Peace and Order), the governing board constituted to run the country.

However, there are many who are skeptical about this new entrance of democracy. To begin with, the elections were initially set for February 24, but shortly thereafter the government announced a change of date and called them for a month later. Some have expressed suspicions about a strategy to prevent the elections from taking place, since, according to the law, they cannot be held after one hundred and fifty days from the publication of the last ten organic laws. Others fear that the NCPO has given itself more time to buy votes, while commenting on concerns that the Election Commission, which is an independent administration, may be manipulated to achieve a success that the military board will find difficult to ensure.

Focusing this analysis on what the future holds for Thai politics, it is necessary to look back at its trajectory over the last century to realize that it follows a circular path.

Coups d'état are nothing new in the country (1). There have been twelve since the first Constitution was signed in 1932. Everything responds to a never-ending struggle between the "military wing", which sees constitutionalism as a Western import that does not fit in with the Thai Structures (it also defends nationalism and venerates the image of the king as a symbol of the nation), and the "leftist orbit", which sees constitutionalism as a Western import that does not fit in with the Thai Structures (it also defends nationalism and venerates the image of the king as a symbol of the nation, Buddhist religion and ceremonial life), and the "leftist orbit", originally composed of Chinese and Vietnamese emigrants, which perceives the institutionalism of the country as similar to that of "pre-revolutionary China" and which throughout the 20th century expressed itself through guerrilla warfare. To this latter ideology must be added the student movement, which since the early 1960s has criticized "Americanization", poverty, the traditional order of society and the military regime.

With the urban boom that began in the 1970s, the gross domestic product increased fivefold and the industrial sector became the fastest growing sector, thanks to the production of technological goods and the investments that Japanese companies began to make in the country. During this period there were coups d'état, such as the one in 1976, and numerous student demonstrations and guerrilla actions. After the 1991 coup and new elections, a discussion was opened on how to create an efficient political system and a society adapted to globalization.

These efforts were cut short when the economic crisis of 1997 came along, which generated divisions and aroused rejection of globalization as the evil force that had brought the country to misery. It is at this point that someone entered the scene who has since been a core topic in Thai politics and who will undoubtedly mark the March elections: Thaksin Shinawatra.

Shinawatra, an important businessman, created the Thai Rak Thai (Thai ama Thai) party as a nationalist reaction to the crisis. In 2001 he won the elections and bet on economic growth and the creation of large companies, but at the same time exercised intense control over the media, attacking those who dared to criticize him and allowing only positive news to be published. In 2006 there was a coup to overthrow Shinawatra, who was accused of serious corruption offenses. However, Shinawatra won the elections again in 2007, this time with the People Power Party.

In 2008 there was another uprising, but the Shinawatra brand, represented by the sister of the former Prime Minister, won the elections in 2011, this time with the Pheu Thai party. Yingluck Shinawatra thus became the first woman to preside over the Thai government. In 2014 another coup removed her and installed a board that has ruled until now, with a speech based on the fight against corruption, the protection of the monarchy, and the rejection of electoral politics, considered as the national epidemic.

In this context, the entire effort of the board, which is running in March under the name of the Palang Pracharat party, has been focused on weakening Pheu Thai and thus wiping any remaining traces of Shinawatra off the map. To achieve this, the board has proceeded to reform the electoral system (in 2016 a new Constitution replaced the 1997 one), so that the Senate is no longer elected by the citizens.

In spite of all the efforts made in vote buying, the possible manipulation of the Election Commission and the reform of the electoral system, it is felt that Thai society can make its voice heard as it is tired of the military government, which is also losing support in Bangkok and in the south. Added to this is the collective conviction that, rather than pursuing economic growth, the board has focused on achieving stability by making Thailand' s Economics more unequal, according data Credit Suisse. For the same reason, the other parties running in these elections, Prachorath, Pheu Thai, and Bhumjaithai, agree that Thailand has to be re-integrated into the global skill and that the capitalist market has to grow.

At the beginning of February the context became even more complicated when Princess Ulboratana, the sister of the current king, Maha Vajiralongkorn, presentation her candidacy in the elections as a representative of the Thai Raksa Chart party, allied with Thaksin Shinawatra. This news was a great anomaly, not only because of the fact that a member of the monarchy showed his intention to participate actively in politics, something that had not happened since the end of the absolute monarchy in 1932, but also because all the coups that have taken place in the country have had the backing of the royal family. The last one, in 2014, had the blessing of the then King Bhumibol. Likewise, the royal family has always had the support of the military board.

In order to avoid a confrontation that would damage the monarchy, the king reacted quickly and publicly rejected his sister's candidacy; finally the Electoral Commission decided to withdraw her from the election process.

Poor governance

In recent years, the military board has been a manager of bad governance, of the country's weak institutional framework and of an Economics threatened by international sanctions that seek to punish the lack of internal democracy.

To begin with, following article 44 of the Constitution proclaimed in 2016, the NCPO has legitimacy to intervene in the legislative, judicial and executive branches under the pretext of protecting Thailand from threats to public order, the monarchy or Economics. This not only precludes any possibility of effective interaction and conflict resolution with other actors, but is an unmistakable feature of an authoritarian system.

It is precisely its characteristics of authoritarian regime, which is how its governmental system can be described, that have made the international community react since the 2014 coup, imposing various sanctions that may seriously affect Thailand. The United States suspended 4.7 million dollars of financial attendance , while Europe has objected to the negotiation of a free trade agreement , because, as Pirkka Tappiola, EU representative to Thailand, has indicated, it will only be possible to establish such an agreement with a democratically elected government. In addition, Japan, the main investor in the country, has started to look for alternative ways, setting up factories in other parts of the region such as Myanmar or Laos.

Faced with the questioning of its management, the board reacted by devoting US$2.7 billion to programs aimed at the poorest sectors of the population, especially farmers, and by investing nearly US$30 billion in the construction of infrastructure in undeveloped areas.

Given that exports account for 70% of Thailand's GDP, the government cannot afford to have the international community at loggerheads. This explains why the board set up a committee to deal with human rights problems reported from abroad, although the goal of the initiative seems to have been more of a publicity stunt.

In the face of a new democratic phase, the board has a strategy. Having put most of its efforts into the creation of new infrastructure, it hopes to open an economic corridor, the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC), with which to turn the three main coastal provinces (Chonburi, Rayong, and Chachoengsao) into special economic zones where industries such as automobiles and aviation will be boosted, and which will be attractive to foreign investment once democratic legitimization has been cleared.

It is difficult to predict what will happen in Thailand in the March 24 elections. Although almost everything speaks of a return to democracy, it remains to be seen how the party created by the military (Pralang Pracharat) will result and how firm it will be in its commitment to a truly honest institutional game. If Thailand wants to continue to grow economically and attract foreign investors again, the military should soon give way to a fully civilian process. It may not be a smooth ride, as democracy is a dress that has so far been a bit of a tight fit for the country.

(1) Baker, C. , Phongpaichit, P. (2005). A History of Thailand. Cambridge, Univeristy Press, New York.

▲ Buddhist sculpture 'Hands from Hell', from the Watrongkhun White Temple, Thailand [Pixabay].

COMMENTARY / María Martín Andrade

Human trafficking is a global phenomenon affecting the entire planet. However, with 11.7 million victims, Asia-Pacific is currently the main hub of operations for organized crime groups that trade in people. Thanks to favorable conditions - natural disasters and migrant and refugee crises, result in a large issue of displacements across the geography of South Asia - criminal groups are in the best status to operate.

Despite ASEAN's efforts to foster international cooperation among its member countries for an effective fight, regional differences and corruption often prevail over other factors. At other times, it is the governments themselves that benefit from migration flows by facilitating forced labor situations, thus contributing to the fact that Southeast Asia continues to have the highest numbers of victims of sexual and labor exploitation. Most migration in ASEAN countries is intra-regional, with Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand being the main destinations for migrants.

Focus on Thailand

In Thailand, 72% of immigration in 2010 was illegal, and is now estimated to exceed 1 million people, with the majority being from Myanmar and other neighboring countries such as Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos. The explanation why Thailand has become a major destination for migrants, and therefore an important playground for human trafficking organizations, lies in the combination of slow population growth, compared to other countries in the region, and high economic development that began to be experienced from the 1990s onwards. According to the ASEAN PostThailand has one of the fastest growing markets among ASEAN members, which has prompted the government to continue working on development its infrastructure, for which immigration is key.

At the beginning of the boom, Thailand recruited immigrants without having legislation to deal with the phenomenon, which resulted in their promoters taking advantage of the status to exploit those who arrived without knowledge of Thai language and laws. It was not until the arrival of the government of businessman Thaksin Shinowatra that a registration system granting temporary permits was introduced. However, when their validity expired, many of these permits were not renewed, thus leaving thousands of workers exposed to illegality and, thus, to sexual exploitation and other class of forced labor in sectors such as agriculture, fishing, domestic services or industry.

On the other hand, the lack of legal regulation of recruitment agencies, to which the Thai government has paid no particular attention, has allowed these agencies to dispose of migrants as they wish without suffering any reprisals. Weak legislation combined with minimal safety conditions for the victims, with only extreme physical abuse being punishable as a criminal offense, creates a status of almost total helplessness for the exploited, who also feel unable to turn to the authorities for fear of being deported.

Human trafficking: challenges and international cooperation

Organized crime in Southeast Asia cannot be tackled without first confronting corruption in the countries themselves, as many officials benefit from facilitating the crossing of their borders by such organizations and illegal immigrants. In addition, the lack of information and intelligence analysis by the law enforcement agencies themselves, together with the difficulties offered by a complicated orography with vast forested and jungle areas that are very difficult to control, hinder investigations and cause the authorities to operate blindly.

With the intention of establishing a common legal basis, several countries in the region have signed the United Nations International Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, with the goal of eliminating legislative differences and providing a means to combat organized crime. However, although Thailand has signed it, along with Singapore and Brunei, it has not yet ratified it. Other solutions have also been proposed by ASEAN, with the creation of Heads of Specialist Strategic Units, whose intention is to promote partnership and cooperation between countries by exchanging information. In addition, a Regional Support Office has been set up to establish guidelines for the prevention, arrest and protection of victims.

Despite the apparent interest of the international sphere, Asia-Pacific countries prefer to be governed by bilateral relations that allow them to be selective in the rules they choose to apply, and cooperation is not possible if the interests of each state are paramount. They will continue to be willing to sign agreements as long as they are not strictly bound by them because, as in the case of Thailand, the concern coming from outside is greater than that perceived domestically.

The fight against human trafficking in Asia-Pacific has a long way to go. The measures adopted cannot be effective if there is no firm intention on the part of the countries involved to put an end to this problem. Human trafficking is the profitability of a harm, a business from which certain dominant sectors benefit, so in order to achieve fruitful international cooperation, the South Asian states would have to perceive it as the scourge it is for their society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kranrattanasuit, N. (2014). ASEAN and Human Trafficking: Case Studies of Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam. International Studies in Human Rights, Volume:109, 4-104.

Henry, N. (2018). Asylum, Work, and Precarity: Bordering the Asia-Pacific. University of Warwick.

Sansó-Rubert, D. (2011). Transnational Organized Crime in Asia-Pacific: Implications for Regional and International Security. University of Santiago de Compostela-CESEDEN, 159-189.

▲Mobilization of the Royal Thai Armed Forces in 2010 [Roland Dobbins-WC].

COMMENTARY / Álvaro Aramendi Baro

Terrorism is hitting Thailand harder and harder. The causes of this incipient growth are difficult to pinpoint. However, the coup d'état by the Royal Armed Forces led by General Prayuth Chan-ocha on May 22, 2014 and, obviously, the subsequent political repressions play a major role. Nor should we forget the pressure exerted by the BRN (Barisan Revolusi Nasional), which for decades has been fighting for the independence of Pattani (located in the south of Thailand) This revolutionary group is also active in northern Malaysia. This terrorist organization is currently being used by ISIS. The strategy of ISIS, as well as that of Al-Qaeda, is based on encouraging and incentivizing nationalist insurgencies in order to have easier access to the territories under its sights.

In spite of this, the jihadist influx has taken different channels from those we already know, as in Iraq or Syria. It is enough to follow the media to guess that the self-styled Islamic State prefers global media expansion to national expansion. This is not the case in Thailand. Both the targets of terrorism and its communication strategy are national and rather hidden, in the shadows. Because of this, the relationship between them is not entirely evident today.

The status is not what it should be. If there is one thing Thailand needs today, it is a period of peace in order to recover from past events. In the last century there have been at least twelve successful coups, the last one, and not counting the 2014 coup, in 2006. There is an urgent need for a quiet period in which to establish a strong foundation, and other structure, for its constitutional monarchy (similar to England's).

Perhaps the best way to resolve the conflict is to avoid falling into the mistake of other countries, such as Burma or the Philippines, and to avoid strong repression. Therefore, as Crisis Group warns, the best option would be dialogue and not the exclusion of ethnic minorities such as the Rohingya, in the case of Burma, or the Muslim community in Thailand (with a Buddhist majority). Should this happen, the terrorist pressure would become increasingly unbearable, until the pot could only explode. Annexation to groups like ISIS can occur for a variety of causes, not adding one more to the list is essential.