Chaotic Thailand Suffers Yet Another "Day of Infamy"

"War, I'm crazy,

war, I'm crazy, I'm war,

war, I'm crazy,

war, I'm crazy, I'm war,

war, I'm crazy,

war, I'm crazy, I'm war."

Those are the lyrics of Pearl Jam's "Untitled" (The Colour of Red) song. It captures the madness of our nation's state of affairs.

The red-shirt protagonist propagates that Thai people have been robbed of democracy. He questions the legitimacy of the government by linking it to the military coup of September 2006.He accuses the "supra-constitutional invisible hand" who had his writing all over the coup.

It is interesting to note that before he finally found a simple message that succeeded in raving up the crowds, the same person had been using many different reasons other than that to justify his move to incite unrest. The flipping and flopping should have cast a shadow on the true motive behind the rhetoric. But mob mentality is not rational enough to see anything objectively.

There are people who compare the red-shirt upheaval here to the French Revolution. The French might take that comparison as an insult. The similarity, if any, is in the appearance, not the essence. The drive and desperation of the masses for a more equitable social and political structure in France is absent from this plotter's equation.

If this red-shirt march is a class struggle, who are the oppressed and who are the oppressors? If it is a fight for democracy, who are the real enemies? If there was no democracy to begin with, would the nightly televised diatribes be possible? Is it not freedom of speech that has been fully accorded the red-shirt leaders? Didn't the Pheu Thai Party - the reincarnation of the Thai Rak Thai Party - participate in the last election, launch the no-confidence motion pursuant to the constitution, and remain vigilant in its criticism of the government? They have not been shut up or cut off. And what are the infringements on the citizen's individual rights by the accused culprits - the Privy Councillors - that so threaten the county's democratic process?

Far from being perfect, the Privy Councillors have been very conscientious about their role. They are fully aware that whatever they do or say can be interpreted as being His Majesty the King's voice. They have no real political authority, and they are fully aware of that. This is not to deny that they do not have any clout, but this clout does not have to amount to anything unless there are like-minded individuals who have their own volition to follow.

The Privy Councillors have not abused their positions in the way that politicians abuse theirs, namely for their own personal, political or financial gain. Until recently, they did not even have an office or official cars, and many drove to work in their own vehicles. They have no police escort or security detail when they are not performing their official duties at public functions. They try to live their lives in a non-ostentatious manner reflective of the lifelong principles of His Majesty.

So what and where are the abuses and exploitation that warrant the outcry for this "democracy"? The Privy Councillors cannot be faulted for being concerned with the internal strife that has plagued the country for a long time. Most of us are. Their power is intangible, but to accuse them of being the "invisible hand" that was used to manipulate the political process requires a leap of logic. Give us undisputed and proven evidence, otherwise stop the accusations.

Be fair. The accused Privy Councillors can never file a defamation complaint to fend off these vicious allegations; their hands are practically tied. They cannot speak up or speak out, and they do not have a forum or stage to rant and incite turbulence. They have no way to clear their names to the public.

Does this sound like the "elites" that the red shirts are trying to bring down because they represent a threat to democracy? Does this "quest for democracy" give carte blanche to the red-shirt instigators to freely and unfairly violate the rights of others? Isn't respect for the rights of everybody at the heart of democracy? And there are people who believe oil is the enemy of democracy, seriously.

All things considered, it is not fair to say that the "quest for democracy" is the goal of the current unrest; it is ochlocracy, government by the mob, or the intimidation of constitutional authority.

A caveat is a lesson from the "Three Kingdoms" epic and the character Cao Cao, whose principle is that it is preferable to take advantage of society and even the whole world than be taken advantage of by even one person. He must win at all and any cost. He set the stage for disturbances that brought down the Han Dynasty, but he did not reach the political pinnacle he aspired to. His life amounted to nothing, and he died a natural death, which in effect deprived him of the heroic martyrdom status he wished for.

Life has its own way of taking revenge.

As for our current political quagmire, most people agree that they see no exit.

"For how can you compete ... with one

who, were it proved he lies,

were neither shamed in his own

Nor in his neighbour's eyes?" 

(William Butler Yeats.)

It leaves a ghastly taste in the mouth as we watch helplessly while the country stares into the abyss.