Introduction
I am going to analyze and examine Thailand according to security apparatus indicator which is one of the cohesion indicators of the Fragile States Index. Before the beginning I want to explain the Fragile States Index and security apparatus indicator shortly. The Fragile States Index is an annual report published by the Fund for Peace and the American magazine Foreign Policy since 2005. It is annually ranking the 178 countries based on different pressures they face that impact their levels of fragility. Ranking is based on the sum of scores for 12 indicators. Each indicator is scored on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest intensity (most stable) and 10 being the highest intensity (least stable). I am going to handle the security apparatus indicator. The security apparatus indicator takes into account the security threats to a state, such as bombings, attacks and battle-related deaths, rebel movements, mutinies, coups, or terrorism; and serious criminal factors, such as organized crime and homicides, and perceived trust of citizens in domestic security.
General Information about Thailand
Thailand, officially the Kingdom of Thailand, is located at the center of the Indochinese peninsula in Southeast Asia (figure 1). “Thailand” means “Land of the Free.” It shows us their pride about the fact that Thailand is the only one country that has never been colonized in Southeast Asia because all other countries in Southeast Asia were colonized by Great Britain and France. Thailand is the world’s 50th-largest country. It is the 20th-most-populous country in the world. Thailand is governing by a constitutional monarchy and has exchanged between parliamentary democracy and military junta for decades. Thailand’s the latest coup was took place in May 2014 by the National Council for Peace and Order. Its capital and most populous city is Bangkok. The Thai economy is the world’s 20th largest economy. The leading sectors in Thai economy are manufacturing, agriculture, and tourism. It is seen as a middle power in the region and around the world.
Now we can continue with analyze according to security apparatus index which Fragile States Index score is 9.0 in Thailand (Figure 2). This score shows us that Thailand is a very fragile and vulnerable country about security issues.
Thai Security Forces and Military Coups in Thailand
When we talk about Thai security forces, we are making mention of the country’s army, navy, air force, police, and paramilitaries. There are over 30 coups and coup attempts in Thailand history. I will try to explain them in a chronological summary.
At first, absolute monarchy of Thailand established a permanent standing security force in the late 1800s. Around the 1920’s, the latter was named “junior associate” monopolized powers of the monarchy and army together. First military coup took place in 1932 when absolute monarchy was overthrown. The Thai military has defined itself as the best organized and most disciplined institution since 1932 (Isarabhakdi, 1990: 13) and so military fascism dominated Thailand until 1944. The monarchy and military produced a national security state; they continued their former collaboration in 1957. The monarchy has generally dominated the security forces and there was no opposition since 1977. When reached the 1992 there had only been five years of elected civilian governments in Thailand. This year some changes occurred in Thai history. These changes were; the Cold War was over, the global move toward democratization had intensified, and a massive pro-democracy demonstration was repressed by security forces in May 1992. By the late 1990s, security sector reforms occurred. These reforms although limited and beginning by the military itself, involved downsizing and regulating the military so created an apolitical military. However, these reform attempts were could not continue after 2001. Thaksin Shinawatra elected as a prime minister in 2001 elections. Thaksin used patronage and personal connections for creating a loyalist faction over most of the police and a small bloc within the military. However Thaksin’s this attitude could not last more than five years. When reached the 2006, military received support from the palace and the Privy Council and overthrown the Thaksin government by a military coup. They created new constitution and this constitution increased intra-party factionalism so weakened the power of elected civilian governments. A pro-Thaksin coalition came to the office in 2007 elections. However, up to the end of 2008 anti-Thaksin Yellow Shirt protestors had taken over several state facilities. Then in 2009 pro-Thaksin Red Shirts made several demonstrations. Consequently, Pro-Thaksin government were re-elected in 2011 elections. Thaksin’s sister Yingluck Shinawatra was leader of the government in 2013. Anti-Thaksin elements had pressured Yingluck to dissolve the Lower House and call new elections in January 2014. On 22 May 2014, the Royal Thai Armed Forces1 launched a coup d’état. The military founded a junta called the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to govern the nation. After dissolving the government and the Senate, the NCPO authorized executive and legislative powers in its leader and ordered the judicial branch to operate under its directives. It partly abolished the 2007 constitution, except the part about the king, declared martial law and curfew nationwide, banned political gatherings, arrested and took in charge politicians and anti-coup activists, imposed Internet censorship and took control of the media.
The Influence of the Military in Thai Politics
At this part I want to especially handle 1991 and 2006 coups. Under the concepts of respect, deference and loyalty to superiors, the military has attempted to fit its hierarchical structure into the framework of Thai politics (Royal Thai Army 2009). 1991 and 2006 military interventions based on military’s self-identification of itself as the guardian of the state and also it wanted to preserve self-interest of the armed forces. Military believed that it was central powerful institution to protect state from insecurity thus it adopted the policy of intervention in domestic polity. Military ideology based on loyalty of the monarchy, sacrificial service to the state, protection and promotion of democracy and defense of the honor and prestige of the military institution itself (Royal Thai Army: 2009). The major reason for the military intervention in politics was the weak performance and corruption of the governments in 1991 and 2006. Thai-style democracy has weak political features such as; low levels of political culture, an unsatisfactory bureaucracy and ineffective elected parliamentarians. For these reasons, public tend to consent the military interventions.
“As a consequence, the rapidity of the coup in 1991 resulted from strong ideology among the military to protect its own interests. On the other hand, because of the awareness of the need to protect state interests and cohesion, the coup in 2006 occurred relatively later.” (Rakson, 2010: 9)
I want to finish this part with comparison of 2006 coup and 2014 coup that was recent. From many perspectives, the 2006 and 2014 restoration coups are exactly the same. The 2006 coup was inexperienced. It did not effective enough to prevent the Thaksin regime’s the abuse of power after the elections. However the 22 May 2014 coup was “all-in”. The coup council – the National Council for Peace and Order – aimed to clean up Thai politics. “The NCPO has not delegated authority to caretaker technocrats as in past coups. This time, the ruling generals are running Thailand more or less directly, with a concentration of power…” (Pongsudhirak, 2014: 3).
Can we call coups in Thailand as democratic coup?
Firstly I want to explain tutelary democracy in Thailand and define the democratic coup then I am going to try answering this question.
There are non-elected elites who hold veto power over the effective power of popularly elected representatives to govern in tutelary democracy. These non-elected elites can discharge elected civilian regimes. When we look at the Thailand, there are three political domains exist beyond the control of elected civilians: the monarchy, the monarch’s Privy Council, and the military (figure 3). This type of democracy created the parallel state structure in Thailand (figure 4).
The most important domain is the monarchy; it is on the peak of political power and unofficially above the law. Constitutionally, the monarch is considered to be above politics, however when we look at the 1973 and 1992 events, the king intervened to end violent conflicts between security forces and demonstrators. So we can say that monarch engaged in politics both publicly and privately.
The second domain is the Privy Council2; it acts as the royal instrument. Unlike the palace, the Privy Council can be publicly criticized. Since the 1990s the Privy Council has increasingly influenced the military. Since the early 2000s, the council increasingly serves as a nexus between the palace and the armed forces.
The third tutelary domain is the military; it is an institution mostly autonomous from elected representatives. The military’s mission prioritizes loyalty to the monarch over any notions of democracy. Although the prime minister apparently has control over military changes, the palace and Privy Council must officially approve them.
Now we can identify “democratic coup” with its requirements. The coup should be made against an authoritarian or totalitarian regime. The military should respond to persistent popular opposition against that regime. The authoritarian or totalitarian regime must refuse to withdraw in response to the popular uprising. The military should be highly respected within the nation. The military should make the coup to overthrow the authoritarian or totalitarian regime. The military should make free and fair elections within a short time. The coup must end with the transfer of power from military to democratically elected leaders.
Consequently, after we looked at the military’s priorities and the conception of democracy, we cannot say that these coups in Thailand are democratic coups. Especially I want to explain failing points of latest coup in 2014 to be a democratic coup. First point is; the overthrown government was democratically elected and had tried to reconcile with the protest movement by promising new elections. Second point is; the military should have responded to popular opposition, however the governing coalition consistently won popular elections and got support from the people. Third point is; the government did not refuse to response, it had called for new elections in response to the protests. Fourth point is; there is no authoritarian or totalitarian regime. Fifth point is; end of the coup military did not transfer power to democratically elected leaders, military remains to be seen.
The Security Treats to Thailand
Southern Thailand: The Problem with Paramilitaries
Paramilitary organizations and village militias have played significant roles in policing and counter-insurgency throughout Thai history. Especially, during the 1970s and 1980s they are effective to counteract against communist and separatist guerrillas. Also these forces have role on controlling refugee camps on the border with Myanmar for following “war on drugs” in 2003. However these forces expanded in a large scale after the suppression of separatist violence in the South. Paramilitary forces were brutal and corrupted; they had serious problems with discipline and abused human rights. Nevertheless the army encouraged and strengthened these forces since 2004. The military set up new paramilitary units known as ranger in South so-called to create a local force familiar with the land, language and culture. However the southern Muslims continue to fear and mistrust these forces. Because of several suspected extrajudicial killings and attacks. The largest armed force in the South is a civilian militia, the Village Defence Volunteers. These forces are poorly trained, isolated and vulnerable; even they cannot protect themselves and their weapons. Since 2004, they have stolen the guns of hundreds and local security incidents have out of control. Although all of these problems, the Queen established a parallel volunteer force. These volunteers received ten- to fifteen-days military training; eventually this training did not enough for well-armed and organized militants. The Buddhist minority in the South feels increasingly threatened. Muslim militants have attempted to drive Buddhists from several areas. Buddhists, frustrated to the government because of its failure to provide adequate protection. Buddhists established private militias throughout the South. Consequently, with these poorly trained and loosely supervised militias’ increase, civilians became main victims, command and control mechanisms lost power, and accountability was weakened.
Terrorism in Thailand
Thailand’s Muslim separatists operate in the nation’s Southern provinces near the Malaysian border. They want independence from Buddhist Northern Thailand since the region’s annexation in 1902. Onward 2004 the insurgent actions increased, Thailand’s Muslim separatists killed over 5000 by resorting violence. Muslim’s have complained of human rights abuses in Thai government. Such as; extrajudicial killings, disappearances, poor socio-economic conditions, little opportunity for advancement… In 2001, Thaksin Shinawatra’s aggressive response to the separatist movement led to more intense actions of Southern Muslims. In 2004 a violent attack took place in the South. A state of emergency has existed in the region since 2005, and special powers of arrest were given to police. However police couldn’t be effective enough to prevent attacks and insurgencies in following years. Thai leader Yingluck Shinawatra had been planning creating a special administration for three problematic Southern provinces however a series of bombings took place in Yala, Yala Province and in Hat Yai, Songkhla Province, on 31 March 2012. After military coup terrorist attacks did not ceased, in 2015 at Bangkok and 2016 at Hua Hin took place terrorist attacks.
Conclusion
In conclusion, after we viewed all these conditions and incidents in Thailand we can easily understand that “why is the Fragile States Index score of security apparatus indicator 9.0 in Thailand?” Thailand is continuing to struggle with the three main issues — a new king, settled military dictatorship, and a resistant insurgency.
Originally published 15.10.2019