1. Patterns in Thai Political History A.Edward Knuth Lecturer British-American Studies Program Thammasat University

2. Why do foreigners' opinions matter? Anyone who is an expert is worth listening to Outsiders provide a different perspective and can be more objective Foreigners are not always applying 'outside' standards and can sometimes be better spokespeople for the majority of Thais in English

3. The Vicious Cycle of Thai Politics Step 1. Dictatorship Step 2. Paper democracy Step 3. Actual democracy Step 4. A 'Crisis' Step 5. Military intervention

4. Scorecard Since 1932 12 successful coups plus 7 more unsuccessful attempts 19 Constitutions (including temporary and 'permanent') 28 heads of government: 9 elected by the people, 1 re-elected 82 years: 19 years under an elected government

5. Types of Crises 1. Threat to the Monarchy 2. External security threat 3. Internal security threat 4. Military in-fighting 5. Political deadlock/'Paralyzed' government

6. The Thaksin Era: What's different? Prelude: The Constitution of 1997 A response to established cycle of Thai politics Lengthy drafting procedure involving representatives from every province Specific reforms aimed at traditional problems in Thai politics (e.g. independent agencies such as the Election Commission and NCCC)

7. Thaksin's Pitch to Voters in 2000/2001 He's a businessman, not a politician, and has the experience to fix the Thai economy He's the head of a broad coalition, including some former protest leaders from the 1970s He's a champion of the poor and will pursue populist policies that will directly benefit rural areas He's anti-corruption (he's rich already, so why be corrupt?)

8. What went wrong? Three Narratives 1. Corruption/Danger 2. Class/Democracy 3. Realism/Power

9. Thaksin era: We're still in the cycle, but... 1. The nature of the crises is different 2. The use of the cycle itself as a political tactic 3. The involvement of the judiciary and independent agencies

10. Problems with the Yellow Narrative: #1. Claims of corruption don't justify acting outside the democratic processes -'Corruption' is not a magic word -Courts and independent agencies are the proper venue -You shouldn't use another person's alleged illegal behavior to justify your own

11. #2. Evidence of corruption is weak 2006 coup leaders had 2 years and unlimited power to find evidence Rachada land case and 'policy corruption' were the result Why can't the courts and people decide? Problems with the Yellow Narrative:

12. #3. There were better solutions to the 'danger' there was real violence and threats of violence violence was in response to illegal activity military could have used its power to defend democratic processes Problems with the Yellow Narrative:

13. What does it mean to believe in democracy?