Font size: 
Scholars do not often write about the similar political profiles of the two countries. This is understandable. Thailand didn’t experience colonial rule. It has a monarchy. And the military has governed the country for a long time. On the other hand, the Philippines was invaded by three foreign powers. Its population is predominantly Catholic. And it has faithfully adhered to Western-style democracy since it gained formal independence in 1946.
These are obvious differences. But there are also similarities in the modern political history of the two countries. For example, political instability has plagued both Thailand and the Philippines, military adventurism could not be contained, and separatist movements in the southern parts of the two nations remain a big problem.
In the past decade the two countries have produced spectacular citizen uprisings which led to the ouster of Philippine President Joseph Estrada in 2001 and Thailand Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006.
Estrada was accused of being involved in illegal gambling. Massive street rallies in 2001 forced the military leadership to withdraw support for Estrada. In Thailand, hundreds of thousands of people went to the streets in 2006 to protest the corrupt practices of Thaksin. The military supported the protests by staging a coup.
Estrada is well-loved by the poor. In fact he accused the noisy Manila elite of being at the forefront of the protests against him. Thaksin is popular among the rural poor of Thailand. He claimed it was only the middle class of tiny Bangkok who supported his ouster.
Estrada was replaced by his vice president, Gloria Arroyo. Many Filipinos have not been satisfied with the Arroyo government. Street rallies have become more frequent since 2005. But Arroyo would not give in to the demands for her resignation, asserting that she was elected to serve until 2010.
Thailand elected Samak Sundaravej early this year. Big rallies were launched a few months ago, reaching a peak this month when protesters stormed Thailand’s Government House. The protesters accused Samak of being a puppet of Thaksin. Samak would not resign. He argued that he was elected by a majority of Thai citizens. Samak finally stepped down because a Thailand court found him guilty of violating the Constitution when he appeared in a cooking show while holding public office.
The Philippine court was also instrumental in affirming the ouster of Estrada in 2001. The court upheld the legitimacy of Estrada’s ouster by citing a diary entry of an executive official which revealed that Estrada had agreed to resign in order to preserve peace in the Philippines. The final blow was a cooking show in Thailand and a diary entry in the Philippines.
The Catholic Bishops were unusually silent when various groups began to mobilize and call for the ouster or even impeachment of Arroyo in 2005. The Catholic Church is a very influential political force in the Philippines. Thailand’s highly revered king did not intervene when protesters demanded the removal of Samak. His silence was a very intriguing political statement.
Various commentators have ridiculed the “people power” movements in the Philippines and Thailand. They described the protesters as part of an unruly mob who wanted to impose the arrogant demands of the minority over the will of the majority.
The debates continue: What constitutes genuine people power? How many people should mobilize in the streets to compel a leader to step down from office? If protests are limited mainly to the capital, should they be belittled as the insignificant voice of the minority? Is the holding of elections the best and only solution to resolve political problems? Do unelected political groups have more right to speak on behalf of the people than representative officials of a nation?
Several lessons on people power politics can be highlighted based on what transpired in Thailand and the Philippines. People power should not be reduced to a numbers game. A united and broad range of people’s organizations are needed in order for a mass movement to gain credibility and effectiveness. Mass actions should be both spontaneous and organized. Grassroots participation is important, but they must prove their political independence from elitist groups.
Unlike the Philippines, Thailand doesn’t have a strong leftwing movement. The participation and leadership of leftist groups in mass actions is important since it guarantees that the broad concerns of various marginalized sectors of society are represented. A political movement that claims to represent the people without proposing a leftwing agenda and without the participation of radical groups with real ties to the grassroots could be easily be dominated by elite interests.
The notion of public space has to be defended. The words of Don Mitchell remain more valid than ever: “In public spaces – on street corners or in parks, in the streets during riots and demonstrations – political organizations can represent themselves to a larger population and through this representation give their cries and demands some force. By claiming space in public, by creating public spaces, social groups themselves become public.”
Thailand has a new prime minister. But protesters have vowed to remain in the streets. People power could still blossom in Thailand. Filipino activists should watch closely the events in Thailand.
--
(Mong Palatino is an activist and regional editor for Southeast Asia of Global Voices Online. He can be contacted at mongpalatino@gmail.com and his Web site is www.mongpalatino.motime.com. ©Copyright Mong Palatino)
