A tale of two bombs -- in Manchester and Bangkok
There were two bombs on Monday. The one in Britain killed at least 22 people and injured 120 as they came out of a concert at Manchester Arena. It was carried out by a suicide bomber named Salman Abedi and claimed by the Islamic State (IS). The other was in Thailand, and injured 22 people at a military-linked hospital in Bangkok; nobody has claimed responsibility yet. But what happened afterwards was very different.
In Manchester they just kept calm and carried on. The Scottish band Simple Minds went ahead with their scheduled concert at Bridgewater Hall in Manchester on Tuesday night, and 80% of the people who had bought tickets showed up for the show. Lead singer Jim Kerr told the audience they would all have "felt cowardly" if they didn't play, they had a minute's silence for the victims, and then they rocked.
The response was similar all over the country. Flags were at half-mast everywhere, and they even temporarily halted the campaigning for the national election due on 8 June, but nobody suggested that the election should be cancelled. That would be not just be craven; it would be ridiculous.
Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
It was different in Thailand. Nobody died in the Bangkok attack, and the bomb was clearly not intended to kill people. It was timed to mark the third anniversary of the most recent military coup, and the likeliest perpetrators were a sidelined faction in the army (although the authorities will probably blame it on pro-democracy activists).
But the leader of the military junta, Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, went completely over the top. When he seized power in 2014, he promised elections in 2015. Using various pretexts, he has pushed them down to 2018, but he is now having second thoughts about the whole idea. "I want everyone to think," Gen Prayut said. "If the country is still like this, with bombs, weapons, and conflicts among people ... can we hold an election?"
Of course they can hold elections. Why would the occasional bomb stop that? As for "conflicts among people", those are inevitable in any society, and elections are the way you settle them (at least temporarily) without violence. Gen Prayut is just nervous about holding an election because it might embolden all the supporters of democracy who have been frightened into silence.
He really shouldn't be nervous, because he has rigged the game pretty thoroughly. The new constitution, ratified last month, makes it practically certain that the military will choose every government even if there are free elections.
Gen Prayut is taking a somewhat subtler approach than the people who succeeded in provoking a military intervention by endless, often violent demonstrations in Bangkok. They thought the best way to ensure that the government stayed in the right hands would be simply to ban the poor from voting entirely, but Gen Prayut realised that this was bound to offend contemporary sensibilities.
The new voting system makes it almost impossible for any single party to win a majority of seats in the lower house of the National Assembly. And the upper house (senate), all of whose 250 members are directly appointed by the military, will have a leading role in choosing who forms the new government unless there is a single clear winner in the lower house.
Thailand has been trapped in a cycle of civil unrest and military intervention since the first left-wing, populist government was elected in 2001 under the leadership of Thaksin Shinawatra. The elite and the urban middle class were appalled by his diversion of government resources from their own interests to those of the rural majority and the urban poor, and they sought military help.
The first military coup came in 2006, but when the soldiers tried to legitimise the government by holding elections under a new military-written constitution, Thaksin's party won again. He went into voluntary exile after that, but his party, under various names and various leaders, just kept on winning the elections.
The party, called Pheu Thai and led by Thaksin's younger sister, was driven from power again by the military coup of 2014. Now Gen Prayut and his fellow generals are trying once again to devise a constitution that would keep the "wrong" people from winning elections. In theory it looks pretty Thaksin-proof, but Gen Prayut is clearly getting cold feet.
The problem is that if the pro-Thaksin voters are disciplined enough -- and they probably are -- then they could beat the new voting system by splitting into several parties but running only one of them in each constituency that they have a chance of winning. Then reunite those parties in a coalition when the National Assembly meets, and you have an instant majority government and no call for intervention by the military-run senate.
Monday's bomb in Bangkok may indicate increasing divisions in the army. Even some of the soldiers must be having doubts about the military's ability to keep permanent control of the country's politics. The next turn in the long saga of Thailand's quest for a genuine democracy may not be far off.
Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries. His new book is 'Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy (and Work)'.