Thailand’s Real Democracy Test

Now that Thailand’s constitutional court has annulled last month's controversial parliamentary elections and ordered a new vote, it is tempting to believe the kingdom’s constitutional crisis has blown over. In fact, the country, which has been under absolute monarchy or military rule for much of its life, may face a more crucial test of its democratic resilience.
The April 2 election was doomed when it failed to return a full 500-member lower house. Some 10 million of the 28 million voters heeded the opposition and marked the “no vote” box on their ballot papers. As a result, scores of candidates from the ruling Thai Rak Thai party failed to win at least a fifth of votes cast required to validate the outcome. This flaw left Thailand without a parliament and with a caretaker government for over a month. Hundreds of lawsuits were filed by opposition parties, protest groups and academics. Many accused the Election Commission of bias and inefficiency.
Admittedly, this was an election Thais could have avoided. Thaksin decided to return to the people only a year after being re-elected prime minister in a sweeping victory. But he could hardly be blamed. The kingdom’s constitutional crisis really began when Thaksin’s opponents refused to defer to that mandate.
During months of street protests in the capital, demonstrators accused the premier of corruption and demanded his resignation. Thaksin, for his part, rebuffed what he considered an elitist display of people power in the capital. He chose to fortify his flank with Thais in the countryside, who have benefited from his cheap health care and rural development policies. However, the indecisive outcome, the prospect of more protests and an audience with King Bhumibol prompted him to step down.
The situation could still have been salvaged. The Election Commission conducted another round of voting to fill the remaining seats, but failed. A third round was being planned when King Bhumibol went on national TV to urge Thailand’s judges to find a solution. Otherwise, the monarch warned, the country might “sink more than 4,000 meters under the sea.” Those words from the widely revered monarch had the effect of a political tsunami.
The court cited the Election Commission’s extraordinary haste in organizing the election without giving sufficient time to smaller parties and candidates to prepare themselves. Specifically, the judges interpreted the constitution as requiring a poll to be held at least 45 days after the dissolution of parliament; the April 2 elections were held only 37 days later. Furthermore, in the court’s opinion, the secrecy of balloting was compromised by changes to the positioning of polling-booths, which made it possible to peer over voters’ shoulders.
Although Thaksin’s gamble failed, he is not about to walk into the twilight as his adversaries would like. He was wise to recognize that his resignation would help to defuse the crisis. However, if Thaksin wants to vindicate himself by seeking his old job, he has every right. Contrary to the assertions of Thaksin’s critics, the constitutional crisis did not stem solely from a self-centered politician’s infinite arrogance and greed for power. The opposition’s refusal to play by the rules did no less harm.