El conflicto es una lucha de clases creciente entre los pobres y las viejas élites del país

Los "camisas rojas" luchan por
una verdadera democracia

Por Giles Ji Ungpakorn (*)
The Guardian, 13/04/09
Rebelión, 15/04/09
Traducción de María Enguix

El conflicto en Tailandia no es un juego de simples filiaciones políticas: es una lucha de clases creciente entre los pobres y las viejas élites del país.

Quienes hayan visto la violencia de esta semana en las calles de Bangkok, seguramente pensarán que el caos actual es sólo cosa de camisas de colores diferentes y de partidarios de diferentes partidos políticos, apenas distinguibles entre sí. No es el caso.

Lo que llevamos viendo en Tailandia desde finales de 2005 es una lucha de clases creciente entre los pobres y las viejas élites. Desde luego no es una lucha de clases en sentido estricto. Como en el pasado hubo un vacío en la izquierda, los políticos millonarios y populistas como Thaksin Shinawatra han logrado liderar a los pobres.

Los pobres, urbanos y rurales, que forman la mayoría del electorado, son los «camisas rojas». Exigen su derecho a tener un gobierno elegido democráticamente. Comenzaron como partidarios pasivos del gobierno de Thaksin, el Thai Rak Thai, pero luego formaron un nuevo movimiento ciudadano llamado Democracia Real.

Para ellos, la democracia real significa el final de la dictadura de la junta militar y palaciega, aceptada desde hace tiempo calladamente y que ha permitido a los generales, los consejeros áulicos del consejo privado y las élites conservadoras actuar al margen de la Constitución. Desde 2006, estas élites han atentado descaradamente contra los resultados electorales gracias a un golpe militar, el uso de los tribunales para disolver el partido de Thaksin en dos ocasiones y el respaldo a la violencia callejera de los «camisas amarillas» monárquicos.

El partido Demócrata actual está en el gobierno gracias al ejército. Muchos miembros del movimiento de los camisas rojas apoyan a Thaksin, y por buenas razones: su gobierno despuntó por varias políticas modernas en beneficio de los pobres, como la creación del primer sistema sanitario universal de Tailandia.

No obstante, los «camisas rojas» no son simples títeres de Thaksin; están organizados en grupos comunitarios y muchos de ellos muestran su frustración por la falta de liderazgo progresista de Thaksin, en particular por su insistencia en la «lealtad» a la corona.

El movimiento republicano está creciendo. Muchos izquierdistas tailandeses, como es mi caso, no apoyan a Thaksin. Denunciamos sus violaciones de los derechos humanos, pero estamos con el movimiento ciudadano por la democracia real.

Los «camisas amarillas» son conservadores monárquicos, algunos con tendencias fascistas. Sus guardias llevan y usan armas de fuego. Apoyaron el golpe de Estado de 2006, destrozaron el palacio del gobierno y bloquearon los aeropuertos internacionales el año pasado. Estaban respaldados por el ejército. Por eso los soldados nunca disparan contra ellos. Por eso el primer ministro tailandés actual educado en Oxford nunca ha hecho nada por castigarlos. A fin de cuentas, nombró a algunos de ellos ministros de Estado.

Los «camisas amarillas» pretenden menoscabar el derecho de voto del electorado para proteger a las élites conservadoras y los «viejos y malos usos» para gobernar Tailandia. Proponen un «nuevo orden» dictatorial, que permita al pueblo votar, pero no que parlamentarios y cargos públicos se presenten en su mayoría a las elecciones. Reciben el apoyo de los medios de comunicación tailandeses convencionales, de la mayor parte de los profesores de clase media e incluso de dirigentes de oenegés.

Para comprender y juzgar los violentos sucesos que sacuden Tailandia, es preciso tener un conocimiento y una perspectiva de la historia del país. La perspectiva es necesaria para poder distinguir entre atentar contra la propiedad y herir o matar a la gente.

El conocimiento histórico ayuda a explicar por qué los ciudadanos conocidos como «camisas rojas» expresan ahora su furia. Han tenido que soportar el azote militar, la privación reiterada de sus derechos democráticos, continuos actos de violencia e insultos por parte de los medios de comunicación convencionales  y de la comunidad académica.

Es mucho lo que está en juego. Todo compromiso está expuesto a la inestabilidad. Las viejas élites quizá piensen negociar con Thaksin para impedir que los camisas rojas se vuelvan completamente republicanos. Pero, pase lo que pase, la sociedad tailandesa no puede volver a los tiempos pasados. Los «camisas rojas» representan a millones de tailandeses hastiados de las intervenciones militares y monárquicas en la vida política. Como mínimo desearán una monarquía constitucional no política.

(*) Giles Ji Ungpakorn es profesor y escritor tailandés que viajó en febrero al Reino Unido tras ser acusado de lesa majestad en virtud del código penal, que prohíbe este tipo de críticas.

Red Shirts in Thailand face the armed might of
the ruling elites

Giles Ji Ungpakorn
WDPress (wdpress.blog.co.uk), 13/04/09

For the fourth time in forty years, troops have opened fire on pro–democracy demonstrators in Bangkok. Each time the aim has been the same: to protect the interests of the Conservative Elites who have run Thailand for the past 70 years.

For those watching the cold–blooded murder by soldiers on the streets of Bangkok, it may be tempting just to assume that the present chaos is merely about different coloured T shirts and supporters of different political parties, as though they were mirror images of each other. This is not the case.

What we have been seeing in Thailand since late 2005, is a growing class war between the poor and the old elites. It is of course not a pure class war. Due to a vacuum on the Left in the past, millionaire and populist politicians like Taksin Shinawat have managed to provide leadership to the poor. The urban and rural poor, who form the majority of the electorate, are the Red Shirts. They want the right to choose their own democratically elected government. They started out as passive supporters of Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai government. But they have now formed a brand new citizens’ movement for what they call “Real Democracy”. For them, “Real Democracy” means an end to the long–accepted “Quiet Dictatorship” of the Army generals and the Palace. This situation allowed the generals, the King’s advisors in the Privy Council and the conservative elites to act as though they were above the Constitution. Les majeste laws and intermittent repression have been used to silence opposition. Ever since 2006, these elites have blatantly acted against election results by staging a military coup, using the courts to twice dissolve Taksin’s party and by backing Yellow Shirt Royalist mob violence on the streets. The present mis–named Democrat Party government was manoeuvred into place by the Army.

Most of those in the Red Shirt movement support Taksin for good reasons. His government put in place many modern pro–poor policies, including Thailand’s first ever universal health care system. Yet the Red Shirts are not merely Taksin puppets. There is a dialectical relationship between Taksin and the Red Shirts. His leadership provides encouragement and confidence to fight. Yet the Red Shirts are self–organised in community groups and some are showing frustration with Taksin’s lack of progressive leadership, especially over his insistence that they continue to be “loyal” to the Crown. Over the past few days, the Red Shirts have shown signs of self–leadership to such an extent that the old Red Shirt politicians are running to keep up. A Republican movement is growing. Many left–leaning Thais like myself, are not Taksin supporters. We opposed his human rights abuses. But we are the left–wing of the citizens’ movement for Real Democracy.

The Yellow Shirts are conservative Royalists. Some have fascist tendencies. Their guards carry and use firearms. They supported the 2006 coup, wrecked Government House and blocked the international airports last year. Behind them were the Army. That is why troops never shot at the Yellow Shirts. That is why the present, Oxford and Eton educated, Thai Prime Minister, has done nothing to punish the Yellow Shirts. After all, he appointed some to his cabinet. The aims of the Yellow Shirts are to reduce the voting power of the electorate in order to protect the conservative elites and the “bad old ways” of running Thailand. They see increased citizen empowerment as a threat and propose a “New Order” dictatorship, where people are allowed to vote, but most MPs and public positions are not up for election. They are supported by the mainstream Thai media, most middle class academics and even NGO leaders. The NGOs have disgraced themselves over the last few years by siding with the Yellows or remaining silent in the face of the general attack on democracy. Despite being well–meaning, their lack of politics has let them down and they have been increasingly drawn to the Right.

When we talk about the “Palace” we have to make a distinction between the King and all those who surround him. The King has always been weak and lacking in any democratic principles. The Palace has been used to legitimise past and present dictatorships. As a “stabilising force”, the Monarchy has only helped to stabilise the interests of the elite. The King has never had the courage to defend democracy or stop military violence. The immensely wealthy King is also opposed to any wealth redistribution. The Queen is an extreme reactionary. However the real people with power among the Thai elites are the Army and high–ranking state officials.

If one is to understand and judge the violent acts which have been taking place in Thailand, we need a sense of history and perspective. Perspective is needed to distinguish between damaging property and injuring or killing people. With this perspective, it is clear that the Yellow Shirts and the Army are the violent ones. A sense of history helps to explain why Red Shirt citizens are now exploding in anger. They have had to endure the military jack–boot, repeated theft of their democratic rights, continued acts of violence against them and general abuse from the mainstream media and academia. If they continue to resist, cracks may appear in the Army. During the past four years Thai citizens have become highly politicised. Ordinary soldiers, recruited from poor families, support the Red Shirts.

The stakes are very high. Any compromise has the risk of instability because it will satisfy almost no one. The old elites might want to do a deal with Taksin to stop the Red Shirts from becoming totally Republican. But whatever happens, Thai society cannot go back to the old days. The Red Shirts represent millions of Thais who are sick and tired of Military and Palace intervention in politics. At the very least they will want a non–political Constitutional Monarchy. It is hoped that the Red Shirts will continue to move to the Left during this round of struggle.