1972

sabato, gennaio 12, 2008

Thailandia. Sul filo del rasoio/2. Prima puntata qui.
Con il risultato del voto di dicembre ancora in sospeso in attesa delle decisioni della commissione elettorale, Asia Sentinel prova ad andare al di là della dicotomia pro / anti Thaksin (o PPP) e ad analizzare più in profondità le dinamiche della politica thailandese, a partire dal grado di soggezione dell'organismo di controllo al governo militare in carica:

It is most likely being pressured to act in the interests of the coup group and its allies. It is also likely that it is being pushed to act in the interests of PPP. Commissioner Sodsri Sattayatham said as much on Thai national television on January 6, when she spoke of “being caught between two poles of power”. The commission also has officials, as do most Thai state agencies, who will be trying to discharge their duties without fear or favour.
People with a short memory assume the current election commissioners were chosen by the Council. The current commissioners were actually appointed while Thaksin was acting as caretaker prime minister. In early September 2006, pro-Thaksin members of the caretaker Senate voted as a bloc to select the five commissioners from 10 forwarded by the judiciary. The bloc-vote ensured that anti-Thaksin nominations for the election commission were eliminated.

From this perspective, it is indeed surprising that not more has been done to eliminate the Thaksin threat. In these circumstances it is obvious that the Council for National Security might seek to influence the election commission. However, whether the council succeeds is a matter for empirical investigation.

Ancor meno appropriata, secondo Michael Connors, l'analisi della situazione in chiave democrazia vs. regime:

Although the struggle between strategically relevant opposing forces in Thailand is presented through the idiom of democracy, the opposing forces who stand by the coupsters are actually an inter-sectoral mix of business, bureaucracy, police, military and royalists who care little for genuine democracy. As these inter-sectoral forces fight for state control they do so in a partial “state of exception” whereby, for the most part, force determines outcomes rather than law, persuasion or a democratic mandate. This is actually the same situation that held in the later Thaksin years, although the balance of forces has reversed.

Meglio parlare allora di tentativo di rivoluzione borghese contro feudalesimo monarchico, ma sempre in un'ottica prettamente asiatica:

Enlightened Thaksin forces want a bourgeois revolution against the current way the monarchy and networks surrounding it work, but they dare not declare their mission. These forces – a mix of the old left, old right, capitalists and technocrats - mobilise forces under a banner of right wing populism, including Buddhist chauvinism, but they have yet to elaborate any genuinely ideological position to challenge the force that thwarts their emergence. They are also hostile to liberal forms of democracy.

Quali scenari si aprono allora in questa lotta fra élites?

At this moment in time it appears that the contending fractions of the Thai elite are about to enter the final round of a long struggle. It remains to be seen if they will step back from the brink and instead embrace compromise. One thing, however, is certain: as long as contending elites fail to agree to any rules of the game and instead wage open political warfare for complete victory, Thailand’s chance of returning to some form of liberal democracy are slim.

Ma c'è qualcuno che vuole davvero la democrazia in Thailandia o il paese sta scivolando verso un sistema ibrido in cui fedeltà al re, tutela dei militari e meccanismi tipici della democrazia parlamentare finiranno per coesistere in qualche modo?

Some analysts believe this election may finally persuade the elites that supported the coup to accept the reality of a changed political landscape. But that process won’t be easy.
“I think what we’re seeing over these past couple of years is that the Thai elite has become disillusioned with democracy because Thaksin opened up the possibility that the poor can have some say in politics, and they don’t like that,” said Giles from Chulalongkorn University. “To develop democracy, civil society will have to push against the Thai elite. It’s going to take some time to educate the elites about the benefits of democracy.

Ecco che la dicotomia iniziale si trasforma: non filodemocratici contro antidemocratici ma società civile contrapposta alle élites dominanti (nonostante tutto alleate nella volontà di conservare i privilegi di casta). Sembra la cronaca di un tempo che fu, ma in Asia l'orologio segna sempre un'ora diversa.

Bangkok Pundit si sofferma sulle possibilità di un altro golpe; la moglie di Thaksin ritorna in patria e viene subito arrestata; intanto la figura del re comincia ad essere discussa perfino in prospettiva critica (anche se ancora all'interno di circoli ristretti):

An American journalist whose critical book on Thailand’s king is banned took the limelight at an international academic conference Thursday even though the author didn’t appear in person.
One participant read out a paper written by journalist Paul Handley and others debated the accuracy and relevance of his “The King Never Smiles,” while taking swipes at the tough stance of censors when dealing with perhaps the most sensitive issue in Thailand — the role of King Bhumibol Adulyadej.
In tracing the life of the 80-year-old monarch, Handley alleges that Bhumibol has proved a major stumbling block to the progress of democracy in Thailand as he consolidated royal power over a long reign.

E ancora:

Nonetheless, the monarch's role in modern Thai history is coming under increased, sometimes critical, scrutiny, even while an outpouring of adulation from his countrymen reaches new highs as the ailing, 80-year-old king nears the end of his reign.

This view is shared by some Thai academics, but the king remains greatly revered by the majority of the population because of a lifetime of effort to alleviate the plight of the have-nots and for stepping into the political arena during national crises.

Il libro di Handley è proibito in Thailandia.

postato da enzreale | permalink |

A Fabio. A Luisa.