Thailand's turbulent politics have gone through a cycle of elections and coups for many years. It is driven by deep social divisions between the Bangkok-based rich urban middle class and poor rural and urban dwellers, the south and north of this large country and conflicts over the role of the army, the monarchy, corruption and clientelism. The decision by prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra to dissolve parliament and call fresh elections for February 2nd is unlikely to resolve the crisis caused by mass protests against the government's amnesty bill, since she seems certain to be re-elected by the majority of rural poor who voted her into office in 2011.
This victory was not accepted by the opposition Democrats, surely one of the most ludicrously misnamed parties in the world. For they refuse to accept the representative legitimacy of the governing party and propose as a solution a new electoral law that would disenfranchise it and in the meantime substitute a non-elected royalist council for parliament. Unsurprisingly, they hesitate about whether to stand in the elections, having withdrawn from parliament at the weekend. Thailand therefore lacks the elementary forms of representative politics which allow a smooth and accepted transition between alternative parties.
The armed forces have wisely refrained so far from provocative action against the mass protests by “yellow shirt” supporters of the opposition, remembering previous interventions against “red shirt” supporters of the prime minister’s Pheu Thai party such as when 100 people died and 2000 were injured in 2010. It will become more difficult for them to remain neutral if the opposition refuses to participate in the elections, five of which they have lost since 2001. They say Ms Shinawatra is a stooge of her exiled father Thaksin, a billionaire businessman who they accuse of buying votes in elections and currying favour from poor Thais with populist health and agricultural policies. But the party commands a definite majority in this divided country.