Purging the Thaksin regime

Purging the Thaksin regime

The goals Suthep Thaugsuban aims for are clear, at least the ones he announces from the stage. The means to achieve those goals are muddier than Saen Saep canal at low tide.

Anti-government protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban speaks to his supporters on Dec 9, 2013. (Photo by Thanarak Khoonton)

Down with corruption? Sure. Down with incompetence? Of course. Down with bad governance? Definitely. Build a real democracy under the true monarchy? Whatever that means. 

The hottest selling goal for Suthep is down with the Thaksin Shinawatra regime. Well, throw the old elite regime in there too, why don’t you?

But by what means can Suthep get Thaksin, his entire network of elite allies in politics and business, his legions of red-shirt loyalists and his 15 million plus voters to say, ‘’OK, we give up. Thailand is all yours.’’  

How does one convince one of the two most powerful political/business coalitions in the country to simply give up on their millions or billions of baht in investments, and the expected billions or trillions in returns over the years to come? 

The key word spoken many times by Suthep is to "eradicate" the Thaksin regime.

The endgame would then have to be much more than the 2006 military coup, or the court’s decision to ban the former Thai Rak Thai and  People’s Power parties. Those strategies led, and would again lead, if employed again, to more nominees, puppets and clones that would  most likely win general elections in the foreseeable future.

To "eradicate" is to make sure there would be no more nominees, puppets or clones competing in Thai politics in the name of Thaksin. 

This would require a purge, and there are two scenarios in which it can be done.

A purge has been well practised in the history of man, since the dawn of civilisation. It's been done under a totalitarian regime, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany; it’s been done under a communist regime, Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union. 

It’s also been done under a democratic regime, the United States during the "red scare" of communist infiltration.

The last example is baby stuff when compared to the first two. But a purge is still a purge. It is to strip your political opponents of the ability to contest for power, including their freedom and life if need be.  

So shall Suthep purge the Shinawatra extended family, the network of political and business allies, the leadership of the red-shirts and other key figures, key generals and senior and junior officers in the police and the military who are loyal to Thaksin? 

Shall Suthep strip them of freedom, or life if need be? Shall he do this in the name of King and country? What if the purge is not efficiently done and the Thaksin regime counter attacks? Should the country be plunged into a civil war? 

There’s another scenario, a simpler one, also well-practised in the history of man. Put a gun to the head of Thaksin, whether literally or figuratively, and tell him to order his allies and supporters to stand down. 

Keep the gun to his head until the day he dies so he won’t change his mind. Or if your wrist gets tired, just pull the trigger and get it over with, literally or figuratively. 

Shall Suthep do this in the name of King and country? Would this really work? Or could one mistake lead to a civil war in Thailand?

Too often do we focus on what is democratic or what isn’t. Too often do we speak of the so-called moral and the righteous. Too little do we examine the realities of the means to achieve those things. Too lightly do we consider the consequences of our actions. 

If no one else can think of any other realistic scenario that would lead to the "eradication" of the Thaksin regime, then perhaps everyone should rethink, and wonder where Suthep is leading us.   

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" – that’s a proverb the protesters should take to heart. 


Voranai Vanijaka

Bangkok Post columnist

Voranai Vanijaka is a columnist, Bangkok Post.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (43)