Introduction
On September 19, 2006, Thailand’s military seized administrative control from the elected civilian government, abrogated the 1997 Constitution, and formed an interim government under an interim constitution. Shortly thereafter, IFES began programming in Thailand directed at assisting the quick return of government to civilian control through credible national elections. In 2007 and 2008, IFES and its partners in Thai civil society and academic institutions helped to support domestic monitoring of the 2007 Constitutional Referendum, targeted voter education for the 2007 Parliamentary Elections and public forums to solicit input on electoral reform and on money and politics. IFES also provided the information gathered through these activities to the Election Commission of Thailand and to various stakeholders engaged in the pre-election electoral law drafting process.
The 2007 elections succeeded in returning Thailand to a democratically elected government. However, the application of strict penalties in Thailand’s election laws had enormous political impact, polarizing the Thai people around competing arguments for the fair exercise of Thai democracy. It is a debate that has given rise to crippling street protests and an escalation in political violence.
Electoral Context
In a little more than four years, there has been a series of significant political upheavals and changes in Thailand: the annulment of the 2006 parliamentary elections; the arrest and conviction of three members of the country’s first independent election commission; street protests and civil actions in the capital both for and against former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra; a 2006 military coup and imposition of martial law; abrogation of the 1997 “People’s Charter;” a temporary ban on political activity; adoption of its 17th (interim) and 18th (by referendum) constitutions; the installment of six prime ministers; the dissolution of multiple political parties; and, the revocation of the political rights of numerous political party officials.
While the 2007 elections were successful in returning Thailand to civilian democratic rule, the subsequent government — perceived as loyal to those ousted in the 2006 coup — was heavily criticized by a rising movement of demonstrators, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD or “yellow shirts”). The newly elected government eventually collapsed when the Constitutional Court disbanded the ruling People Power Party (PPP) and two of its coalition partners for malfeasance (primarily vote buying). In the resulting hung parliament, the opposition Democratic Party was able to secure enough votes across party lines to form a government, which has in turn been plagued by serious counter demonstrations. These demonstrations have been conducted with increasing intensity by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD or “red shirts”), who claim that democracy has been manipulated through legal technicalities and that the will of the people has been denied.
In such a polarized political environment, aspects of the electoral system have become the focal point of legitimate grievances on both sides and have contributed greatly to challenges to the current government’s legitimacy. Both sides claim to act in the true interests of Thai democracy. With important political battles playing out on the street rather than in the formal political system, negotiations between the Government and the red shirt leadership centered on the date and conditions for early national elections.
On May 3, the Prime Minister set out a reconciliation roadmap that included the offer of November 2010 elections under specific conditions. The UDD, while agreeing in principle to November 2010 elections (an important breakthrough), responded with its own set of conditions and demonstrations continued in Bangkok. After a series of more limited violent incidents, the standoff erupted into violence on May 19 as the army moved to end the demonstration. While the army succeeded in dispersing the demonstration and arresting key UDD leaders, the action has left the Thai public deeply divided.