From Illiberal Democracy to Military Authoritarianism: Intra-Elite Struggle and Mass-Based Conflict in Deeply Polarized Thailand

• DOI: 10.1177/0002716218806912
• Date: 01 January 2019
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• Subject Matter: I. Democratic Collapse and Return of Old Elites

24 ANNALS, AAPSS, 681, January 2019

DOI: 10.1177/0002716218806912

From Illiberal

Democracy to

Military

Authoritar-

ianism:

Intra-Elite

Struggle and

Mass-Based

Conflict in

Deeply

Polarized

Thailand

By

PRAJAK KONGKIRATI

806912ANN THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMYFrom Illiberal Democracy to Military Authoritarianism

research-article2018

Thailand fits the pattern of pernicious polarized politics

identified in this volume, where a previously excluded

group successfully gains political power through the bal-

lot box, governs unilaterally to pursue radical reforms,

and produces a backlash from the traditional power

elites. In Thailand, elite conflict has been a major part

of the story, but this article argues that political polariza-

tion there cannot be merely understood as “elite-

driven”: conflict among the elites and the masses, and

the interaction between them, produced polarized and

unstable politics. Violent struggle is caused by class

structure and regional, urban-rural disparities; elite

struggle activates the existing social cleavages; and ideo-

logical framing deepens the polarization. While the

Yellow Shirts and traditional elites want to restore and

uphold the “Thai-style democracy” with royal national-

ism, the Red Shirts espouse the “populist democracy” of

strong elected government with popular nationalism

and egalitarian social order.

Keywords: polarization; Thaksin Shinawatra; pop-

ulism; Thai-style democracy; military

authoritarianism

Since the mid-2000s, international media

have regularly portrayed Thailand as a

country engulfed by tumultuous street violence

and a deep divide between two opposing politi-

cal mass movements, called the Yellow Shirts

and Red Shirts, whose differences of ideology

and interests were signified symbolically by

color codes. According to McCoy and Rahman’s

(2016) dynamic model of polarization, Thailand

perfectly fit the causal pattern of pernicious

polarized politics, in which “a previously

Prajak Kongkirati is an assistant professor, head of

the Government Department, and director of the

Direk Jayanama Research Center, Faculty of Political

Science, at Thammasat University in Thailand. He

is on the editorial board of Thammasat Review of

Economic and Social Policy, and the Asian Democracy

Review. His current research project is the study of

military authoritarianism in Thailand in comparative

perspective.

Correspondence: prajakk@yahoo.com

FROM ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY TO MILITARY AUTHORITARIANISM 25

excluded or marginalized sector of the population successfully gained political

power through the ballot box, governed unilaterally to achieve the deep reforms

they espouse, and produces a backlash from the previous power elites. The

resulting conflict may end in a) gridlock and/or instability, with alternating gov-

ernments failing to achieve governability; b) removal of the new group from

power; or c) increasing authoritarian behavior by the incumbent to stay in

power.” (p. 2).

Dynamics of Polarization in Thailand: Divided Polity and

Zero-Sum Politics

Political polarization in Thailand is a recent phenomenon. It emerged in 2005

with protests against the government of former prime minister Thaksin

Shinawatra that gradually became the mass movement known as the Yellow

Shirts. Polarization deepened when the triple alliance of royal-military-bureau-

cratic elites, supported by Yellow Shirt protesters comprised mainly of urban

middle- and upper-classes, as well as big business groups, decided to overthrow

the popularly elected Thaksin government by staging a military coup in 2006.

The coup led to the formation of a pro-Thaksin mass movement (generally

known as the Red Shirts), which mobilized to confront the traditional elites and

the Yellow Shirts. The Red Shirt movement gained support from rural people,

urban poor, Thaksin’s party constituency, and progressive activists, as well as local

and national politicians connected to Thaksin. The confrontation and clashes

between the two opposing movements, and between state security units and the

demonstrators, led to a large number of deaths and injuries, a paralyzed govern-

ment, political instability, military intervention, and democratic breakdown. Over

time, political polarization also spilled over into the societal sphere (including

among families, friends, and communities). As polarization deepened, people

were forced to choose sides, and political contestation became a deadly game.

In this article, I argue that the political polarization in Thailand should not be

understood merely as an elite-driven conflict. Seeing Thailand’s ongoing polariza-

tion as an elite power struggle between Thaksin and rival royal-military elites is

not completely wrong, but it does not fully appreciate the dynamics of the polar-

ized conflict. Fierce struggles between opposing sides of the elite are driven not

only by control of state power and economic interests, but also by different

notions about nationhood and political legitimacy. Furthermore, socioeconomic

factors are not sufficient to account for the deep polarization that has evolved

over time. The ideological component needs to be taken into account, as it pro-

duces the ingroup/outgroup division, and coalesces people from various socio-

economic backgrounds into two rival political camps.

To understand polarized conflicts in Thailand, it is thus important to under-

stand two layers of conflict—the elite and the masses. The interaction of these

two layers—shaped by individual, institutional, structural, and ideological

factors—has led to the pernicious polarization witnessed in Thailand since the

mid-2000s.