An Open Letter from the Open Forum for Democracy Foundation ("Poll Watch")

When asked by reporters whether former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was one of the four parties, dialogue proponent Vanchai Vathanasap said the fugitive has been "too distant from local politics and he should not be part of this dialogue".

Well, the "Saturday Night Live" show at the Rajamangala Stadium rendered Vanchai a big slap in the face!

Even before the overseas phone-in hoopla by convicted fugitive Thaksin, we had no doubt why Vanchai's proposed dialogue was ridiculed repeatedly by PAD leaders. They argued that the PAD is at odds not with the hooligans and hired herd of the DAAD, hence the latter and even the opposition serve only as distractions. So long as Thaksin still pulls the strings, setting the political agenda from afar, there will be no peaceful settlement on the horizon.

The PAD is against Thaksin's cronyism that has been handed down to the Somchai administration, as well as its predecessor Samak's, and the potential successor, the Poo-ar Thai Party, which comprises most of the executive directors of the former Thai Rak Thai Party, banned by the Constitution Court from involvement in politics.

Instead of falling for Thaksin's self-serving letters to "Friends in the International Media", foreign journalists and observers should question how banned politicians are actively manoeuvring behind the political scenes to provoke violent confrontation at all cost.

Financially speaking, Thaksin is known to be not stringent about the costs involved in promoting his political agenda. The Saturday phone-in showcased yet another self-serving gimmick. Thaksin got the international media hooked in further propagating his apparent popularity - urged the masses to "help bring me home" - without giving importance to the fact that he has transgressed the due process of law.

The Open Forum for Democracy Foundation would like to express its view on the current political stand off among the various parties, directed in particular at "armchair critics" with inadequate information. Those who have a distaste for the PAD - for its objectionable language and "undemocratic siege" of the Government House - should at least explore why thousands of educated and middle-class urbanites have been camped out there for over five months without being paid to do so.

Armchair-bound political critics should try gaining first-hand experience by joining a DAAD rally or the PAD at the Government House, and compare the rhetoric and provocations witnessed at each venue. Better yet, they should stroll around the premises to profile the demonstrators and assess the on-site situation that is usually not reported in the media.

While we commend the PAD for its educational extension programme over the past five months, with demonstrators attending open-university classes on politics, we abhor the tabloid style of twisting facts to excite the demonstrators to the point that the Government House has been turned into an "entertainment" venue. Nonetheless, we agree that even the least-educated demonstrators have learned about Thai politics and that this will contribute to a more sophisticated pool of voters in future elections.

The majority of the Thai populace stays aloof and is still very much misinformed by NBT and all state-concession radio and TV stations, as well as the print media, which sells out for adverts and bought columnists who churn out fabricated information.

No doubt many surveys yield the same result: that most respondents are irritated by the PAD demonstration and want the government to get serious about law enforcement, with regard to reclaiming the Government House. On the other hand, the PAD has only its ASTV satellite broadcast and the unreliable radio frequency 97.75 MHz, both paid for by the demonstrators and supporters inside and outside Thailand. It resembles the underground radio heard during the 1999 war against Albanian guerrillas in Kosovo.

There are similar examples we can learn from in other countries in recent history, including the Philippines' "People Power" movement which brought down the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship in February 1986. Then, Filipinos flooded the streets of Manila in yellow shirts. The "Orange Revolution" in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev is another lesson from which we can learn. From November 2004 through to January 2005, thousands of Ukrainians demonstrated daily in a series of civil disobedience sit-ins and general strikes until the self-proclaimed "democratically elected government" that came to power through massive electoral fraud and voter intimidation eventually resigned. The latest example is the "Tulip Revolution" in which the people of the central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan overthrew President Askar Akayev and his government. The revolution sought the downfall of Akayev and his family and associates, who had become increasingly corrupt and authoritarian. Despite his victories in the parliamentary elections of February 27 and March 13, 2005, the fact is that the polls were known to be marred by massive fraud. Following the revolution, Akayev fled the country. Does that sound familiar?

Thailand has not achieved the stage of "revolution" as in the aforementioned countries, despite the sit-in by peaceful demonstrators at the Government House. Please note that we fully acknowledge the fact that many violent incidents have occurred in the past five months, including the fatal one on October 7. However, our first-hand experience tells us that they were all unilateral attacks against unarmed PAD demonstrators. We therefore call for the dissolution of Parliament to revamp the political landscape before the government, with an upper hand in the lower House and connections in the upper House, succeeds in amending the Constitution to its advantage.

Though we are worried about the resurrection of populist policies as a pretext to vote buying in disguise, more disturbing is the coalition government's stance that supports a convicted fugitive. This only invites more violent conflict in society. Whether the people in red T-shirts from the north and north-east were paid to attend the televised talk in Bangkok is not an issue, Thaksin's on-air appeal to 'his' supporters challenges the legitimacy of the judiciary that convicted him - and this is unacceptable by any count.

The Open Forum for Democracy Foundation hereby rejects the validity of the government claim that it was elected by a landslide victory, because its massive popularity is predicated by its vote buying, which was proven by the Election Commission. The Constitution Court shall hand down its verdict on dissolving the coalition parties soon.

Of course, the prolonged PAD protest has caused a nuisance to many quarters of society. On the other hand, we see it as a constitutional right for people to stage a peaceful demonstration in any modern democracy whenever the powers-that-be do not serve the interests of citizens. The DAAD and government supporters are also entitled to their constitutional right to demonstrate, provided that it is openly peaceful.

The point is that the current administration and its predecessor yearn for the return of their ousted political master, a convicted criminal on the run, instead of seeking true reconciliation that is a prerequisite to bringing the fugitive to justice. Hence, it is more than justifiable both democratically and even morally for citizens to block the continuation of such a despotic tyranny, and the succession of its cronies. So long as it is carried out peacefully, it has our endorsement. Dialogue is hence a non-issue if the government continues on this course.

THE OPEN FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY FOUNDATION ("POLL WATCH") |DIRECTORS:|GEN SAIYUD KERDPHOL (RET.)|KHUNYING AMBHORN MEESOOK|CHAMNONG WATANAGASE|SAK KORSAENGRUENG|SAKOOL ZUESONGDHA|SOMCHAI SRISUTTHIYAKORN|WARIN TIAMCHARAS|DUSIT, BANGKOK