Leadership in this crisis reflects a crisis in leadership

Written by changthai11 on Friday, October 10th, 2008

LET IT BE

Suranad Vejjajiva

Political leadership is tested in a crisis. For a crisis brings out the best and worst in humans. Successful democratic leaders must be able to lead and uphold the values and ideals of democracy which they are elected to protect. They must take responsibility for their actions and be accountable, with the people’s interests at heart.

Tuesday’s day-long sparring violence in front of Parliament and surrounding areas, ending that night with two deaths and 400-plus injured, reflected the lack of leadership in handling the ongoing political crisis. It raises questions not only of the capacity to lead of Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat and his cabinet, but also the role of members of parliament on both sides of the aisle, and the Senate, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), the military and the police.

On the morning of the scheduled parliamentary session for PM Somchai to declare his government’s policy, the PAD blocked off all entry points to the parliament compound. The PAD’s intention was to prevent, at all costs, the act of delivering the policy statement since the deliberations would legitimise the government in accordance with the constitution.

Fully authorised, the government can go ahead in directing the various bureaucratic organs, reshuffle the top ministerial positions and disburse the budget - all to its own advantage if an election is called soon. A successful disruption would, on the other hand, negate the legitimacy to govern both de jure and de facto. It would also create paralysis if Parliament came under siege the same way Government House has been after the PAD’s occupation since late August.

The conditions were thus set for a showdown, which regrettably led to subsequent bloodshed. The police used tear gas to disperse the mob and forced open the parliament gates for lawmakers to enter, meet and eventually exit. But along the way, by not being able to maintain order nor effectively control the occupied area, the crackdown was viewed as a tactical error for the police and a strategic mistake for the government.

A democratically elected government must at the very least appear to have exhausted all other means before resorting to force. By not attempting to negotiate first and by not avoiding confrontation, the government was perceived as insensitive.

And once the decision was made and the order given, PM Somchai did not give any explanation to justify his actions though he had an excellent opportunity to do so before his reading of the policy statement. That would have demonstrated leadership, that he was in charge and that he had to protect democracy and the rule of law.

Disappointingly, PM Somchai did not choose to do so, and whatever dignity he had left was lost as he scrambled over the fence and on to the waiting helicopter, which took him straight to a meeting with the military top brass. The only message that came out in the press conference which followed was that he would remain the prime minister.

Leadership is projected through effective communication. PM Somchai had many opportunities to subdue dangerous rumours and provide reassurance to calm the general public. People need to know that someone is taking care, they need to understand how they will get on with their lives in abnormal times. The skirmishes seen on television screens were discomfiting because they reflected chaos and loss of civil control.

But the decisions were left to the police. The public did not even see or hear from the interior minister, a former police chief himself. How can one feel safe when there is bloodshed, when weapons are fired and bombs explode, when pictures and videos identify the shooters - yet no arrests are made and no laws enforced?

On the other hand, the conduct of the opposition Democrats was again disappointing. Even if government action was deemed wrong, this was no excuse to abandon parliamentary democracy through a boycott. Even more so, it is on the parliamentary floor that the voice of the opposition can be made to protest and protect the rights and liberty of the people. By choosing not to enter Parliament that morning, the opposition likewise relinquished its political leadership.

The bright spot was Senator Rosana Tositrakul of Bangkok, who stood up to protest, despite the harsh words uttered by government MPs. She spoke her mind in protest against the government’s actions. Her bravery will be duly noted by the general public.

The PAD’s leadership must also be cautioned. Civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr and Mahatma Gandhi stood in front of their march to correct the wrongs of society. They did not create a human shield to protect themselves. Their language was one of compassion and change through civil disobedience. Dr King always resisted the factions in his movement that proposed more violent tactics. Theirs was a far cry from the strong language which stimulated feelings of hatred and superiority that was heard on stage at the PAD’s rallies, and the war cries and violent provocation displayed over the past few days.

Ironically, the democratic voice of reason came from General Anupong Paojinda, commander-in-chief of the army. By being professional in his stance and dismissing a coup as the solution to the present conflict, General Anupong brought fresh air to disperse the fog of tear gas. Hopefully he will continue to resist the temptations and pressures to adopt undemocratic means in the near future.

The present political crisis and confrontation in itself reflects a crisis of the Thai political leadership. Either the present leadership on all sides act as responsible and moral democratic leaders should, or they should be prepared to step aside and make way - for a crisis not only tests present leaders but opens up opportunities for new leaders to emerge as well.

Suranand Vejjajiva served in the Thaksin Shinawatra cabinet and is now a political analyst.