http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/02/thailand-s-election
Thailand's electionA symbolic exerciseFeb 2nd 2014, 8:41 by Banyan | BANGKOK SO ENTRENCHED are positions on either side of Thailand's divided polity<http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21595453-both-sides-stand-must-back-down-or-risk-their-countrys-disintegration-way-out> that the outcome of the election held on February 2nd was clear long in advance. The governing Pheu Thai party of Yingluck Shinawatra, the prime minister, would win, if only because of a boycott by the main opposition party, the Democrats. In fact, it would win anyway. Parties loyal to Miss Yingluck's brother, the self-exiled Thaksin Shinawatra, prime minister from 2001 until he was deposed in a coup in 2006, have won five successive elections (in 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2011). The suspense centred rather on whether the poll would be peaceful, or marred by ugly clashes between anti-government protesters and those hoping to vote. So far, the worst fears have been confounded. But so have the hopes of those few who dreamt the election might help bring Thailand out of its political cul-de-sac. Tensions mounted in Bangkok on the eve of the poll with a shoot-out<http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/392731/lak-si-shoot-out-puts-poll-on-knife-edge> in one part of the capital, Lak Si, where protesters were trying to prevent election materials leaving a local-government headquarters for the polling stations. Eight people were injured when pro-government supporters tried to lift the siege. It was fortunate that the death toll from the protests--ten so far--did not rise further. The hail of gunfire at Lak Si was another reason for voters to stay at home on election day itself. Many did. That did not stop a few tense confrontations in Bangkok, including one outside another district headquarters, at Din Daeng, which succeeded in thwarting voting in the district. Exacerbated by a heavy presence of journalists, doing their job of looking for trouble, the tension led to an angry scuffle and a gunshot, before being defused. In some other parts of the capital, the election was serene. In the well-off neighbourhoods of Sathorn and Phaya Thai, for example, voters could cast their ballots unmolested. Few did so, however--perhaps one-fifth as many as in the previous election in 2011, according to some of the officials. These areas could be ignored by the opposition largely because they are populated by their supporters, who did not need persuasion to join the boycott. Of those who did vote, some said they plumped for "none of the above", to demonstrate their frustration with both the protesters and the government. As a whole, Bangkok is Thailand's most contested electoral territory<http://asiancorrespondent.com/60211/final-vote-count-election-2011-bangkok/>. In 2011, the Democrats won 48% of the vote compared with Pheu Thai's 44%. Elsewhere the dividing line in Thai politics is geographic as well as social and economic<http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21594989-thailands-very-unity-now-under-threat-you-go-your-way-ill-go-mine>. Democrat support is strongest in the south, where the boycott was observed in many places and voting cancelled in a number of provinces. Pheu Thai rules the roost in the north and north-east, which account for the majority of parliamentary seats. So there voting proceeded regardless of the boycott, ensuring Pheu Thai of victory whenever results are announced. The Election Commission reported that nationwide 89% of polling stations functioned normally. Winning may not help Pheu Thai and Ms Yingluck very much, however. It will face short-term legal challenges to the poll. It is already clear that voting has not been possible in enough constituencies to fill the 475 (out of 500) seats needed to form a quorum in the national assembly to name a new prime minister and government. And the Democrats will challenge the legality of the whole election. They have no choice. Under the law, they have disqualified themselves from sitting in parliament by failing to vote. They may well succeed in having the poll annulled. They can also point to a number of polling stations that could not open because of a lack of staff and for other reasons. And, in the longer term, no political compromise seems possible<http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/01/economist-explains-13> that can accommodate the interests of both Pheu Thai's voters and their opponents. A large part of the electorate, encouraged by powerful sections of the establishment, has turned its back on electoral democracy and wants an appointed "people's council" to take charge. A non-voter in Phaya Thai spoke for many when he justified his boycott by saying that voting would be to "legitimise a corrupt government". Government critics like him accuse the foreign press of misunderstanding Thailand; of failing to grasp the extent of the Shinawatras' corruption or of their ambition to monopolise power, by relying on the votes of people outside Bangkok. In the capital, he claimed, the electorate is "more educated and more informed". So long as the Shinawatras can keep winning elections they have a strong argument against simply giving up power. Why should they? The forces intent on making them do so, however, probably including the army's leaders, may well ultimately succeed. That would lead to what one of Miss Yingluck's advisers calls with a certain grim relish "the endgame". He means a violent one. (Photo: EPA) -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
