Every modernising society faces the same existential challenge: either to adapt its social contract to the new social reality, or to risk being torn apart by violent political conflict. Thailand now stands at this fateful crossroads.
An image of a clenched fist in defiance of a protester next to a line of barbed wire during a rally epitomises the combative approach which spells doom for unilateral efforts to reform institutions to strengthen the rule of law. AP/Wason Wanichakorn
Thailand's political conflict plays out on two interwoven levels. The elites fight over the control of the country for the next generation while society at large demands clean ("yellow") and responsive ("red") governance.
No matter how the elite power struggle will end, no one can any longer rule without the consent of the middle classes. The emancipation of the middle classes in Bangkok and in the regions is changing the rules of the game.
Middle class rage over the feudal social practice of "corruption" erodes the patronage system. Middle class disapproval of the use of force shifts the political battlefield towards discourse and legitimacy. Maybe recent strategic blunders on both sides can be explained by the failure of traditional power brokers to play by these new rules. Hence, it is necessary to better understand the grievances, fears and demands of Thailand's middle classes.
To oversimplify, one side feels dominated by the old establishment and seeks to strengthen majority rule. Not surprisingly, they want to do away with the "trojan horses the old elites", the courts and independent commissions. The other side feels threatened by the abuse of majority power, and seeks to check it with anti-majoritarian safeguards. Not surprisingly, they want to do away with "parliamentary dictatorship of corrupt politicians".
Both sides believe they can win this struggle. Ironically, both sides are wrong for the same reason: a serious miscalculation of the balance of power.
Driven by the forces of modernisation, power is shifting away from the elites. The relative decline of the elites cannot be undone by "rooting out" rival elite factions. Politically awoken, the majority population will not rest until it has achieved equal rights. On the other side, elite networks are prepared to use their economic, coercive and ideological power to defend their interests within the constitutional framework of possible, or outside if necessary. Hence, fantasies to settle the score once and for all are nothing but suicidal delusions.
In fact, belligerents on both sides are acting against their own best interests.
Juggernaut majoritarians seek to tax the wealthy to build a socially just society with full capabilities for all. However, bulldozing over the fears of minorities creates the political resistance and economic instability undermining the ability to make this vision come true. Enlightened self-interest embraces the notion that the most valuable thing the powerful minority can give is the acceptance of majority rule. This can and will only happen if the minority does not have to fear to be abused, and feels its interests are safeguarded by anti-majoritarian "veto" institutions.
Stalwart anti-majoritarians seek protection against the overzealousness of the poor. However, by displaying utter disregard for the political rights of the majority, they fuel the political conflict which threatens the very interests they seek to protect. Enlightened self-interest would come to the conclusion that the most valuable thing the majority can give is to play by the rules, and refrain from the abuse of power. This can only happen if the majority does not have to fear democracy will be abolished, and political rights are respected by anti-majoritarian institutions.
Hence, it is in the best interest of all parties to strengthen the rule of law, and build effective democratic institutions. Again, it is the combative approach which spells doom for unilateral efforts to reform institutions.
Institutions are only effective if they are respected by all sides. If one side imposes rules on the other, they will be disobeyed or even openly resisted. In such a polarised atmosphere where even the smallest issues become politicised, pressing problems cannot be solved. Making Thailand fit for global competition needs steady governance, not turf war. The strong institutions needed can only be built by consent between all stakeholders.
In times of rapidly changing social fortunes, rational individuals will only consent to institutions which are beneficial to them irrespective of their future social status. Hence, only nonpartisan, merit-based institutions with narrowly defined mandates are acceptable to all sides.
Contrary to the belief of institutional engineers, effective institutions cannot be imported, but must be built upon social consensus. Only a broad societal coalition can build the democratic arena in which all parties can later compete.
However, even universal consensus on a liberal constitutional framework will not be enough to overcome Thailand's social conflict. A social contract is more than a set of rules and governance organisations. What is needed is a social compromise between all classes how to live together.
It may be helpful to study how European, American and Asian societies ripped apart by conflicts restored social peace with a social democratic compromise. In a social democratic compromise, the establishment embraces democracy as the best way to safeguard its interests in the long run. In return, emerging classes acknowledge that the best way to ensure their rise is to respect minority rights. Based on a social democratic platform catering to the needs of a modern society, broad societal alliances successfully tackled the twin challenges of transformation conflict and populism.
Marc Saxer is resident director of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Thailand office.