The current political crisis in Thailand brings forth several assumptions regarding its emergence. The tumultuous historical background suggests numerous factors playing a role in the present breakdown in Thailand. By shedding light on the historical patterns of political evolution in Thailand, one can possibly help resolve the current conundrum of governance for the present and the future. This article will explain the tumultuous situation in Thailand in the context of three significant questions. What parts of the society comprise the ‘Red Shirts’ and the ‘Yellow Shirts,’ and what are the root causes for such a violent uprising in Thailand? Are there any major economic underpinnings in the political condition since the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997? What are the reasons for the escalation of the protests and how far will it undermine the process of democratization in the region?

Thailand is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary form of government, but is marked by an important historical dissimilarity from its regional neighbours. Although occupied by Japan during the Second World War, Thailand was the only country in Southeast Asia that was not colonized by Europeans, and also avoided the wave of communist revolutions that took control of the neighbouring governments of Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s. Thailand followed a checkered path to democracy, enduring a series of mostly bloodless coups and multiple changes of government in its modern history. Although Thailand became a constitutional monarchy in 1932, it was ruled primarily by military dictatorships until the early 1990s.

Firstly, the root cause of the ongoing political turmoil and instability is a result of an inscrutable polarization of the society since 2006. The current crisis began in March of 2010 when large groups of peasants stormed into Bangkok to paralyze the city. The protestors were divided between two main groups: the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), known as the “yellow shirts” and the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), known as the “red shirts.” The PAD, initially formed in 2006 under the leadership of media baron, Sondhi Limthongkul. He led large-scale protests accusing Thaksin of corruption and subversion of democratic practices, which some observers claim laid the groundwork for the military coup. The PAD is ideologically in sync with the elite establishment of Bangkok: a mix of the military, royalists, the bureaucracy, and largely urban and middle class citizens. The combination of Thaksin’s broad popularity and clampdown on opposition opinions in the media threatened many of those in the “old guard.” The “red shirts” are Thaksin loyalists who insist that the current government is illegitimate. Thaksin’s traditional power base is the rural, poorer population of Thailand; his attention to this constituency helped unleash a new populist movement that led to two overwhelming electoral victories and unprecedented consolidation of power from 2000 until his removal in 2006.

Secondly, the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis was also a defining moment in the history of Thailand.  Few scholars have critically examined the Thai political crisis as a class struggle, but it would be myopic to look at it merely as an elite versus a rural divide. While this may be one of the indicators, it is not the only issue that is leading to the current political situation. There are two critical factors that are contravening of any class struggle: First, in Thailand, the elite are divided on ethnic lines and their cohesion has always been very fragile making the political leadership unable to manage the elites. Second, Thaksin Shinawatra was as committed to the neo-liberal economic model in Thailand. To portray Shinawatra as a modern day version of Che Guevara or Fidel Castro would be utterly erroneous and unreasonable.

The present political upheaval is definitely affecting the process of democratization in Thailand in mixed ways. Democratic values are not deeply rooted in Thai society and the patronage system dominates Thai society at all levels allowing corruption to prevail. Democratic culture is not well established, and the freedom of expression is highly restrained for certain sections of the society. The double standard applied by the authorities also deepens the cultural conflict, and a lack of tolerance to promote mutual dialogue during a conflict is inherent.  The democratic process has been continuously interrupted by the military when the parliament has faced problems. Different groups are politicizing the role of the royal institutions; however, the current government has previously seen this conflict related to the anti-monarchy movement. The democracy and the monarchy have been critical issues in Thailand since the 1932 revolution, and the population is still not allowed to discuss it.

Interestingly, the current situation may have a positive effect and invariably contribute to the process of democratization in Thailand. Eventually, the country will gain a lot from this conflict since people nationwide are politically motivated and will increase their participation. However, since Thai politics is still uncertain and under possible military intervention, the process to re-stabilize rule of law, social justice and good governance, to bring back the needed balance between civil liberty, social responsibility and security in Thai society will be attained gradually.