Thai Elections: A Case Study in Mob Mentality

Presidential elections for the United States are approaching, but I recently learned that the Thai general elections were pushed back again because of the situation of the government and its constitution. I would really like to talk to people about the current state of Thailand’s government, but not many people, including myself, have made an effort to understand the difficult situation between the government and the citizens.

The current conflict in Thailand began with the government leaders, but has spread tremendously throughout the nation. Especially in Bangkok, the capital, citizens are strongly opinionated. However, the two main groups—the red and yellow shirts—are split completely down the middle. Protests and political gatherings are limited by the government, but there is still unrest. Many of the members of these groups are knowledgeable in their perspective, but many are paid or blindly following.

Although this is more extreme than the situation in the United States, people everywhere often find themselves joining in activities with a mob mentality. It’s a dangerous situation—with no one stopping to listen to the other side and find a solution, nothing will progress. By examining Thai politics, we can understand the consequences of our own actions in relation to the discussions and arguments that occur campus-wide.

Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister of Thailand from February 2001 to September 2006, was elected into office twice. However, many began to criticize his action of selling shares of his corporation to foreign investors without paying taxes. Soon after, Thaksin was accused for corruption and abuse of power. Despite his self-exile, many citizens still support him and his actions.

Shinawatra’s sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, was elected as the Prime Minister of Thailand in 2011. She implemented a plan in hopes of profiting from Thailand’s enormous agriculture industry. Her idea was to “buy rice from farmers at inflated prices.” She hoped that if they reduced the global supply by stockpiling rice within the country, they could resell it later at an even higher price to earn a profit. However, countries such as India and Vietnam simply supplied more rice, and therefore her plan only benefitted the farmers. Although she was viewed as more favorable than her brother, she was also found guilty of corruption.

Since the military coup established itself in 2014, the NCPO—the National Council for Peace and Order—replaced the standing Thai government. Although there is not much citizens can do to influence changes made by the new government, people took sides in this conflict, resulting in violent protests on the streets of Bangkok.

The two main groups—the yellow shirts and the red shirts—are representative groups of the Thai citizens. The yellow shirts, known as the People’s Alliance for Democracy, opposes the actions of Thaksin. The red shirts, known as the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, opposes the military coup which overthrew Thaksin in 2006.

The NCPO repealed the 2007 constitution revised by Thaksin and dissolved the Senate. The constitution had partially been altered to benefit Thaksin during his term as prime minister. They established a nationwide curfew, declared martial law and banned political gatherings. These rules were established to prevent the violence caused by protesters, but at the same time, the coup wanted to shut down any opposition to their rule.

There is no right or wrong side in this situation. Although Thaksin was not acting with selfless intentions, the military was not elected to replace Thaksin. Elections have been pushed back because of the delay in finalizing a new draft of the constitution. As of now, elections will be held in the second half of 2016 or even as far as 2017. This setback extends the military generals’ rule of the government until proper elections can be held.

I hope that by reforming the system before electing new leaders, less corruption and unrest within Thailand will occur. However, the military generals are the ones in charge of establishing a fair constitution, so it may be likely that it will, in the end, favor the ambitions of the military.

The protests from 2014 were covered in the news, but recently, I have not seen or heard much about the issue. This problem covers different forms of government. Was Thaksin rightfully accused of corruption? Does the accusation make it valid for the military to step in? Will a new constitution and elections fix this problem? The two groups of yellow and red shirts are so divided that creating thoughtful and productive discussion seems impractical. Time is also a factor—is it worth it to take time to fix the constitution before holding elections? Who benefits from the delay in the short and long term?

Although it’s important that people in Thailand are forming opinions and educating themselves, many are blindly following because of the mob mentality. It connects back to how humans as a whole become extremely attached to one side of a conflict. If we never take time to understand how or why the opposition exists, a productive discussion will never occur.

I am not an expert in this extremely complex topic, and there is no right answer for what we should do. We, as Americans, do not have a duty to serve the people of Thailand, but it is still important that we take moments to learn about global issues, even if we can’t change anything ourselves.