| |
Coup-coup land
This article has been included within our articles section
If we have to have a quiet legislative coup to reverse the real coup and put an end to the judicial coup before everything spins out of control, then it would be worth it.
It is after the water-splashing and body-cooling festivities that is Songkran. This is a time when we're supposed to feel replenished and re-energised after the long holiday and plenty of quality time with loved ones.
Though I'd like to continue that experience for everyone and not write anything heavy on this first, post-Songkran article, Anchorman simply refuses to disappoint. So why not kick off the new year in the Thai calendar on a really serious note with the question: What is better for the country - a quiet, legislative coup, or a judicial coup?
Taking a phrase from the April 14, 2008 Newsweek magazine's editorial entitled, Turkey's Judicial Coup d'Etat, on the upcoming court decision on whether to disband the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Turkey, I quote authors Morton Abramowitz and Henri J Barkey in stating the following:
Though it is legal to pursue the case, it is, to many Turks, quite simply a 'judicial coup'. Yet last week Turkey's Constitutional Court agreed to hear the case, jeopardising the country's political and economic stability, already suffering from world market pressures. This battle could last for months, its outcome is uncertain and its consequences, whether the AKP wins or loses, would be bad.
Tell Thailand about it!
For those non-followers of Turkish politics, the AKP has won landslide elections and continues to be extremely popular among most average Turks. Yet, their attempt to bring about changes to laws seen as abandoning the tradition of secularism, has prompted the attorney-general to file charges against the AKP for violation of the Turkish constitution. The offences include such small, but apparently significant, reversals to more permissive rules to allow the wearing of headscarves in universities.
The punishment, if dealt out by the court, would match the five-year ban already seen against Thai politicians. The Turkish court is also being asked to ban 71 of the AKP's executives, including the country's president and prime minister, for five years.
I'm certainly not trying to convey the message that other countries do dissolve parties, too. In fact, it is the opposite which I am trying to convey.
Just as Turks are mostly stunned with the potential reality of the AKP being disbanded, the Thai people - probably with the exception of the ideologically hardcore People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and Democrat supporters or extreme judicial activists - refuse to believe such a dissolution would make sense legally, or would even be productive politically.
Now go back a week.
The PAD has stated that the current attempt by the People Power party-led administration to amend the entire constitution was the equivalent of a quiet coup for self-beneficiary purposes.
The argument behind that train of thought is that the revisions, once made, would save the PPP from facing dissolution by the Constitution Tribunal that is about to be formed.
What is ironic about the phraseology of both sides in the to amend or not to amend debate and the dissolve or not dissolve debate, is that their stance originated from the same premeditated act back in September 2006.
The living reality of the situation is that one of two systems now faces extinction. And, no, this is not an exaggeration.
I am not referring either to authoritarianism versus democracy. That dichotomy is too simplified in this day and age. Rather, it is a race to outpace the other side in terms of legal manoeuvring.
The Sept 19, 2006 coup d'etat became a launch-pad for the writing of a constitution, and politically-related organic laws, to grant overwhelming power to the judiciary branch.
The powers granted lets judges hav |
