Judicial coup or landmark ruling?
Yingluck's supporters and some academics are describing her dismissal as a judicial coup.
Since this is the fourth time the courts have disqualified a Shinawatra-backed party or premier has been disqualified, it might seem that way, but we should consider the context. The charges of blatant nepotism and contravening the governing process, along with corruption in the rice scheme, are the result of a prime minister handing over power and key decision-making to her brother, Thaksin, whose present legal status is "fugitive criminal". This is not the man we voted for to run our country. His doing so is not democratic, and the courts cannot try him for these blunders, so someone else has to be held accountable. In essence Yingluck's fault was to "outsource" the power entrusted to her by "the people". In this respect the courts were right to punish this proxy arrangement by ruling according to the letter of the law. It should set a precedent so that, come next election, the premier will not risk handing control to someone else. The courts have done democracy a service by showing that governance is a responsibility entrusted by "the people" to the elected prime minister, and no one else. And that person is ultimately accountable for his or her actions.