by Jonah Shepp
The Guardian has been live-blogging from Thailand, where the military declared a state of emergency and imposed martial law this morning, but claims it is not carrying out a coup:
Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha said the military had stepped in to restore order and build investor confidence, and warned that troops would take action against anyone who threatened security. At a press conference he said martial law would continue as long as necessary. The army offered to mediate between pro and anti government protesters after a six months of demonstrations and a stand off between the two sides. “We ask all sides to come and talk to find a way out for the country,” General Prayuth said.
Caretaker prime minister, Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisan, who had refused to protesters’ demands to step down on Monday, called for an election on 3 August. He said martial law could help the elections take place and said he was seeking talks with the generals.
Charlie Campbell calls out the army on that claim:
“The public do not need to panic but can still live their lives as normal — this is not a coup,” said an announcer Tuesday on military-run television, while soldiers took up positions at key intersections in the tourist-thronged Thai capital. However, Pavin Chachavalpongpun, associate professor at the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies at Kyoto University, says, “I think you can call this a coup … because this is about taking away power from the people, taking control of the political situation and human rights.”
Military intervention is endemic in Thailand. Since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932, the country has seen 11 successful coups, 23 military governments and nine military-dominated governments. The current coup, Pavin says, “is a move preserving the political position of the country’s elite.”
The Economist weighs the possible outcomes:
One idea is that martial law will create a face-saving exit for Suthep Thaugsuban, the leader of the anti-government protests. He has led the movement for six months now and so far failed to topple the elected government. His plan to have it replaced by an appointed government was going nowhere; there is no constitutional basis for toppling Thailand’s electoral democracy.
While Mr Suthep might welcome a break after six months of marching in the sun, this is surely not what motivated the imposition of martial law. The better bet is that martial law is something like a last ditch effort on the part of Mr Suthep’s sponsors. He had been playing the role of a front man for the old Thai establishment—representing the street-level id of the civil service, the army, the judiciary and the monarchy—and he has failed to deliver.
In this scenario, today’s move might then be a more forceful bid to dislodge the government and appoint a new one with the aim of rewriting rules of the game. The point would be to depose Thailand’s democracy and with it the chances of electing yet another government loyal to Thaksin Shinawatra, the one figure who has united democratic majorities in recent years.
Adam Pasick analyzes the situation from an economic standpoint:
Thailand has weathered many political upheavals and natural disasters, earning it the sobriquet “Teflon Thailand,” but as Quartz has reported, the nonstick surface is showing some heavy scratches: GDP fell 0.6% in the first quarter as consumer confidence and foreign investment plummeted. It’s unclear whether the declaration of martial law will exacerbate those fears, or create a stable starting point for the country to move forward.
“The imposition of martial law is not, in itself, negative for Thailand’s ratings, although clearly we are keeping the situation under close review,” said Fitch Ratings analyst Andrew Colquhoun in a note to clients. “It may even help to break Thailand out of the political deadlock of the past six months, by which the two sides have failed to agree on arrangements for new elections.”
Previous Dish on Thailand’s political crisis here, here, and here.
The Dish 