The political history of Thailand is dominated by numerous military coupe. The country claims to be a constitutional monarchy next to Japan in Asia but, the monarch king Rama IX has a complete control over the military and jurisprudence of the nation. One of the compelling reason for such a powerful alliance between the military and the nobility is the country's strong relationship with the United States government post second world war and especially during the Vietnam war, where members of any left organization across the south-east Asia were witch-hunted and killed for their political philosophy.
Thailand's class struggle is historic but i can only dare to analyze it's contemporary period. The early 60's when the 57% of the population lived in poverty, mostly peasants scattered in the north and north-east parts of the country. The country was still agrarian while industrialization was observed in secluded parts of the south and coastal ports. The early 80's witnessed the usher of free-market system. Even with the growth rate of 12.4% the rural areas of the north suffered the worst standard of living.The rich got richer while the poor kept on getting poorer.
The working-class witnessed a full-blown exploitation in the year 1997 when the bubble of the 'Asian economic miracle' busted. The military refused to intervene leaving the crisis for the bourgeoisie to steer. This economic crisis also marks the entry of neo-liberal politics in the country. The ruling bourgeoisie let the international bourgeoisie in the form of IMF(International monetary fund) intervene in their domestic economic policy making. The IMF initiated cuts in public fundings and reformed the financial institutions in favor of furthering free-market exploitation. The masses without a strong workers led party or a real trade union were helpless in stopping the looting of the wealth of their nation.
The 21st century bought a major change in the country's political landscape. This comes to no surprise judging by the contemporary economic conditions of the US and the emergence of the neo-liberal mouth piece like President Obama. Similarly Thailand in the year 2001 elected a neo-liberal demagogue who tapped in to the throbbing vein of anti-IMF resentment among the masses. The election witnessed candidate Thaksin Shinawatra of the Pheu Thai party in power with a 40% of the total vote. The largest majority in any open Thai elections.
Prime minister Shinawatra in no ways desired a socialist transformation of the nation. However, while in power he implemented numerous reforms which were Keynesian in nature. The reforms were in the interest of the poor , particularly the rural peasantry in the north, where the national income increased by 46% from 2001-2006. Nation-wide poverty fell from 21.3% to 11.3%. This guaranteed Thaksin and his party a strong base which has proletarian in nature.
Thaksin's popularity among the masses alarmed his opponent bourgeoisie and the ruling nobility. Following the second electoral victory there were allegations made by the opposition 'royalist' party charging him with corruption and privatization of the state-owned enterprises. These allegations though hypocritical in nature brought Thaksin in odds with a certain layer of the working-class. The military sensing his venerable position ousted him in an overnight coup sparking a conflict between the reactionary royalist also know as the 'yellow shirts' and pro Thaksin's 'red-shirts'.
The elections in 2007 saw a pro-Thaksin party again in power but they were hardly allowed to presume the office because of a court decision resulting in to a judicial coup. The military again intervened taking control of the streets while the opposing bourgeoisie staged a puppet government which resorted the hegemony of the international bourgeoisie.
The crisis reached it's pinnacle when the ruling unelected government were forced to declare new elections in the year 2011. The new elections bought Yingluck Shinawatra in power, Yingluck is the sister of now exiled ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The elections did gave her her brothers credibility. Like her brother she rose to power as a populist. She followed the similar Keynesian policies. However, unlike her brother she faced an economic situation completely different. In an global economic meltdown, An economy that relies heavily on exports was bound to follow severe repercussions.
The current coup which has been a success reveals implicitly the class-antagonism and how the capitalist system works against any form of democracy. If Yingluck truly represented the working people she could have easily stood her ground and radicalized her political base. She in no ways supports nor even inclines on the thoughts of over throwing this repressive system. On the contrary she consciously made efforts to work on a deal with her fellow bourgeoisie and the military. The military has once again snatched the power; and in an attempt to conform the masses is giving out free hair-cuts and free broadcast of the football world cup.The red-shirts are left without a leader or any form of organized structure from which a vanguard party could emerged. What would happen next is hard to predict, With the military by their side, the bourgeoisie is going to try it's best to hold on to the status-quo.With globalization the struggle for workers control is no longer acute towards the most capitalist country. Yet, a counter-punch in the belly of the beast is our only hope towards an international revolution.
