There has been much speculation and derision when some have mentioned Thailand/Bangkok in the same breath as Iraq or Burma. People say that Thailand is nowhere near as bad as the other two countries and this commentator is obliged to agree. However the bigger question underneath is, is Thailand a failed state?
For this a little further investigation is required and using the Fund for Peace/ForeignPolicy ‘s criteria for ranking failed states in their annual failed states index a better picture is presented.
There are 12 criteria overall. Pay attention to the last ones under the heading Political.
The first four fall under the heading Social Indicators.
I-1 defines itself as
- Pressures deriving from high population density relative to food supply and other life-sustaining resources
- Pressures deriving from group settlement patterns that affect the freedom to participate in common forms of human and physical activity, including economic productivity, travel, social interaction, religious worship
- Pressures deriving from group settlement patterns and physical settings, including border disputes, ownership or occupancy of land, access to transportation outlets, control of religious or historical sites, and proximity to environmental hazards
- Pressures from skewed population distributions, such as a “youth or age bulge,” or from divergent rates of population growth among competing communal groups
These terms and conditions would not seem to effect Thailand outright. The basic resources of food and water are plentiful in Thailand with the odd shortage in certain geographic location (Issan notably) but overall as a rice exporting nation we have massive stores of food. We fair even better in the second part with free migration (for citizens) and freedom to worship. Border disputes with Cambodia somewhat tarnish I-1 but we do not suffer from a youth or age bulge. So far, so good.
I-2 defines itself as
- Forced uprooting of large communities as a result of random or targeted violence and/or repression, causing food shortages, disease, lack of clean water, land competition, and turmoil that can spiral into larger humanitarian and security problems, both within and between countries
The answer is no. Unless you count the Rohingar, for the purposes of this short study let’s only count Thai citizens. (Apologetically)
I-3 defines itself as
- History of aggrieved communal groups based on recent or past injustices, which could date back centuries
- Patterns of atrocities committed with impunity against communal groups
- Specific groups singled out by state authorities, or by dominant groups, for persecution or repression
- Institutionalized political exclusion
- Public scapegoating of groups believed to have acquired wealth, status or power as evidenced in the emergence of “hate” radio, pamphleteering and stereotypical or nationalistic political rhetoric
Our first big sticking point really. There is a history of aggrieved communal groups most notably in the South but now the disillusioned seems to be in the north east as well as the north. Both sets of grievances date back centuries with the South an ethnic struggle and the north a class struggle. Pattern of atrocities? See Thak Bai, Current Crackdown, etc etc etc. No specific groups have been singled out by the state. Institutionalized political exclusion definitely exists, it’s the whole reason the redshirt protesters are out there, in the south there are villages without running water/plumbing according to numerous sources. Scapegoating? See Thaksin/PTV/ASTV/Sonthi/Prai/Amataya arguments. Fail on all counts.
I-4 defines itself as
- “Brain drain” of professionals, intellectuals and political dissidents fearing persecution or repression
- Voluntary emigration of “the middle class,” particularly economically productive segments of the population, such as entrepreneurs, business people, artisans and traders, due to economic deterioration
- Growth of exile communities
No. None of these really apply.
I5 and I6 are under the heading Economic Indicators
I5 defines itself as
- Group-based inequality, or perceived inequality, in education, jobs, and economic status
- Group-based impoverishment as measured by poverty levels, infant mortality rates, education levels
- Rise of communal nationalism based on real or perceived group inequalities
Yes there is group based inequality among geographical lines. Yes group based impoverishments if you compare poverty levels of north east and north to rest of the country. If statistics of IMR was available that would probably reflect inequality as well. Rise of communal nationalism? Redshirts now, CPT in the 60s/70s/80s
I6 defines itself as
- A pattern of progressive economic decline of the society as a whole as measured by per capita income, GNP, debt, child mortality rates, poverty levels, business failures, and other economic measures
- Sudden drop in commodity prices, trade revenue, foreign investment or debt payments
- Collapse or devaluation of the national currency
- Extreme social hardship imposed by economic austerity programs
- Growth of hidden economies, including the drug trade, smuggling, and capital flight
- Increase in levels of corruption and illicit transactions among the general populace
- Failure of the state to pay salaries of government employees and armed forces or to meet other financial obligations to its citizens, such as pension payments
No for all except growth of hidden economies and levels of corruptions. They were bad under Thaksin, grew during the coup and now leveling off under current administration.
I7 – I12 is under the heading Political Indicators. – This is where it gets interesting
I7 defines itself as
- Massive and endemic corruption or profiteering by ruling elites
- Resistance of ruling elites to transparency, accountability and political representation
- Widespread loss of popular confidence in state institutions and processes, e.g., widely boycotted or contested elections, mass public demonstrations, sustained civil disobedience, inability of the state to collect taxes, resistance to military conscription, rise of armed insurgencies
- Growth of crime syndicates linked to ruling elites
Massive corruption by elites? Check. Resistance of ruling elites to accountability and transparency or political representation? CHECK. Widespread loss of confidence in institutions? CHECK. Growth of Crime syndicates? Hard to say.
Overall fail, massively.
I8 defines itself as
- Disappearance of basic state functions that serve the people, including failure to protect citizens from terrorism and violence and to provide essential services, such as health, education, sanitation, public transportation
- State apparatus narrows to those agencies that serve the ruling elites, such as the security forces, presidential staff, central bank, diplomatic service, customs and collection agencies
Not really in most cases although since the start of the crisis both points are becoming more defined and obvious.
I9 defines itself as
- Emergence of authoritarian, dictatorial or military rule in which constitutional and democratic institutions and processes are suspended or manipulated
- Outbreak of politically inspired (as opposed to criminal) violence against innocent civilians
- Rising number of political prisoners or dissidents who are denied due process consistent with international norms and practices
- Widespread abuse of legal, political and social rights, including those of individuals, groups or cultural institutions (e.g., harassment of the press, politicization of the judiciary, internal use of military for political ends, public repression of political opponents, religious or cultural persecution)
CREDS/SOE/Curfews covers the first point pretty damn well. Live firing zones and randomized violence covers the second point well too. SOE means people can be arrested without due process. As for the last part, judge that for yourself.
I10 defines itself as
- Emergence of elite or praetorian guards that operate with impunity
- Emergence of state-sponsored or state-supported private militias that terrorize political opponents, suspected “enemies,” or civilians seen to be sympathetic to the opposition
- Emergence of an “army within an army” that serves the interests of the dominant military or political clique
- Emergence of rival militias, guerilla forces or private armies in an armed struggle or protracted violent campaigns against state security forces
Black Shirts/Snipers/M79 attackers need I say more?
I11 defines itself as
- Fragmentation of ruling elites and state institutions along group lines
- Use of nationalistic political rhetoric by ruling elites, often in terms of communal irredentism, (e.g., a “greater Serbia”) or of communal solidarity (e.g., “ethnic cleansing” or “defending the faith”)
Defending the throne arguments by PAD. Greater Thailand by red shirts, Fragmentation of armies and upper class. This is clearly obvious.
I12 defines itself as
- Military or Para-military engagement in the internal affairs of the state at risk by outside armies, states, identity groups or entities that affect the internal balance of power or resolution of the conflict
- Intervention by donors, especially if there is a tendency towards over-dependence on foreign aid or peacekeeping missions
God lets hope not.
Conclusion
While I wouldn’t call Thailand a failed state yet, the fact that we’re rapidly deteriorating and headed there is cause for grave concern. The government should and could restore order simply by taking away live ammunition from the street and employing non lethal methods as well as allowing complete freedom of the press. That is not to say the red shirts aren’t guilty of inflammatory and divisive rhetoric. Both sides need to calm the fuck down. But the SOE/LesMajeste/Curfew laws needs to be heavily reformed and the government should take the first step, they are the bloody government.
