The party is over

May 31st 2007 BANGKOKFrom The Economist print edition

In two landmark legal rulings,
Thailand and Malaysia take steps away from democracy and freedom

THE nine judges of Thailand's Constitutional Tribunal took ten hours to outline in a marathon session, televised live on May 30th, the electoral-fraud cases against the country's two main political parties (and several small ones).

They explained in elaborate detail why Thai Rak Thai (TRT), the largest, was being disbanded, whereas its main opponent, the Democrat party, was cleared of all charges. However, the elegance of their legal arguments may be lost on millions of Thais. They gave TRT sweeping election victories in 2001 and 2005 and probably still support the party and its leader, Thaksin Shinawatra. As voters may see it, the country's most popular party has been destroyed by a court set up by the military junta that seized power last year, claiming to be rescuing democracy.


A week before the tribunal's rulings, Thailand's revered King Bhumibol intervened, giving warning that his realm was “close to sinking” and noting that “political parties must exist”. This raised hopes that the tribunal would stop short of dissolving either main party, and punish only individual politicians. Those hopes have been dashed.


In four months of hearings, the tribunal examined allegations of misbehaviour by the accused parties during a snap election Mr Thaksin had called in April last year. The Democrats and other parties boycotted the election, claiming it would be unfair. The courts later found grounds to annul the results, after the king urged them to sort out the “mess”. TRT was accused among other things of bribing small parties to take part in the election, while the Democrats were accused of inducing leaders of smaller parties to make false accusations against TRT.


After the coup, the junta, led by the army chief, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, replaced the Constitutional Court with a new tribunal, whose judges it selected, and told it to pursue the electoral-fraud cases.


The junta also appointed an interim government of old soldiers and bureaucrats; and created a temporary parliament and another unelected body to write a new constitution. The generals also set up investigations into the allegations of corruption and abuse of power by the Thaksin administration, while their interim government sought to borrow some of its policies, such as cheap health care and development funds for rural villages, which had made “Thaksinomics” so popular.


However, although the corruption investigations have unearthed enough evidence to press charges, they failed to find enough of a “smoking gun” to wreck Mr Thaksin's reputation irreparably. Meanwhile, the interim government has dithered and bungled, dragging down the economy and making Thaksinomics, for all its other flaws, look good. And Mr Thaksin, through a series of stunts such as bidding for Britain's Manchester City football club, has ensured he is not forgotten.


This week's judgment would appear to eliminate TRT and prevent any comeback by Mr Thaksin and his henchmen. But the generals are far from being in the clear. Lesser figures in TRT may regroup and find ways to recapture the party's millions of votes, in the elections the junta promises to hold by the year's end.


That is if things get that far. The junta's constitution-writing body has already backtracked on several undemocratic clauses it tried to slip into the new charter, such as permitting an unelected prime minister and allowing for a “crisis council”, including military chiefs, to step in and solve political conflicts. But other unpopular provisions—such as having the Senate appointed by judges and bureaucrats rather than elected—remain in the draft. So voters, angry at the destruction of the party many support, may reject the proposed charter in the referendum the junta is promising to hold. The mobilisation of police and soldiers ordered by the jumpy generals to head off protests, and their censorship of pro-Thaksin websites and radio stations, may not be enough to prevent rising popular unrest against the regime, despite Mr Thaksin's call on his supporters to accept the verdict.


Local newspapers had quoted one of the nine judges as saying they would “apply the spirit ” of the coup-makers in making their rulings. This, plus the severity of the punishment meted out to Mr Thaksin and his party, and the absolution of the Democrats, will only raise suspicions that the destruction of TRT was a pre-determined outcome.


Hopes of a peaceful move back to democracy have dimmed.