• 
• 

Published on November 29, 2007

 Some people might ask me, 'Weren't we supposed to be shaking hands with the Democrats? Let me state here that it's not the case. We were shaking hands only when we were both in the opposition. I am a man of my word. When we agreed to be in the opposition, we stuck together. But now that an election is coming up, the link - the obligation - is no more. We will talk after the election is over to see who is in a position to form the next government. That's all. This is what politics is all about."

Banharn Silpa-archa, leader of the Chart Thai Party, in a speech delivered to a crowd in the northeastern province of Kalasin on November 23.

"I spent two sleepless nights after the press distorted my remarks in the Northeast. I would like to reiterate that I am a faithful man and truthful to my word. Newspaper headlines had me say that I had forgotten my pledge with a respected senior citizen. That's not true at all … But if I attacked Thaksin [Shinawatra, ex-prime minister] in my campaign speech in the Northeast, I probably wouldn't be able to enter that part of the country again."

Banharn, talking to reporters on November 26.

Perhaps because of - or despite of - the contradictions, these two quotes made one of the hottest political stories of the week, less than a month before the election.

If you understand him correctly, politics - or at least his brand of politics - is all about the art of positioning yourself in such a way that you will be in the next government. Being in the opposition is a loser's game. Politics, by that definition, is certainly not about sacrifice, principle and moral integrity.

It takes an inordinate amount of courage and huge intellectual risk for an honest politician to be able to declare that he is "friendly to all parties" when the political landscape is clearly split right down the middle. No party, unless it's hopelessly devoid of principle, can honestly say it can line up with either the Democrats or the People Power Party (PPP), because they represent two diametrically different scenarios.

If politics is about public service, a politician would have to align himself with one of the two groups because honesty and integrity demand that anyone seeking public office should have his or her own platform that serves the public interest, not expedience. Only when politics is turned into a public auction can a party's only criterion for deciding which side to take go to the highest bidder.

Banharn was reminded by reporters that he had only a few days earlier declared that his party would keep its alliance with the Democrats "because I can't possibly disappoint a senior person whom I had respected for 30 years …" In what was probably a sudden attack of amnesia, the Chart Thai leader said: "I don't remember anything related to that now."  Three days later, however, the veteran politician, nicknamed the "Eel on Skates" for his famous political agility, switched to damage control mode by, you guessed it, blaming the press for misquoting him.

If national reconciliation is the excuse for Banharn's latest tactical shift (conspicuously to woo the northeastern voters, where the PPP is supposed to have a firm electoral base), he won't get off scot-free. Undermining the public's faith in politicians through the apparent practice of grabbing power at all cost could be more detrimental to the country's stability than the atmosphere of confrontational politics so far. Such third-party machinations only confirm the growing suspicion that Thailand's hope of political reform is effectively in tatters and the old era of horse-trading and dirty-money politics has returned with a vengeance.

What, if Banharn means his words to be taken seriously, does a vote for his party mean, then? That vote certainly won't be for stability. It more likely than not may turn out to be a licence for a third hand to wreak havoc on the post-election landscape by using that vote as a bargaining tool, thereby destabilising any coalition that might be cobbled together after December 23.

If, in the end, the Chart Thai leader's real intention in declaring his "neutrality" in his northeastern speech was to secretly hope that a possible twist or post-election stalemate could land him the premiership, that dream might have been smashed already.

Just the other day, PPP leader Samak Sundaravej made it clear that if his party wins enough seats to form the next government, he would assume the premiership himself. That Samak would have trouble convincing the Thai public that he was for real, and not a Thaksin nominee, is another question in a separate scenario.

"Khun Banharn won't get that post for sure … Even if he was to join the Democrats, that party wouldn't cede the top post to him either."

Banharn retorted a day later that he wasn't gunning for the premiership anyway "because one's life span is shortened after having been prime minister".

But nobody in his right mind takes any political pronouncements seriously during this highly charged campaign. But realities suggest that the "third hand" may yet learn a painful lesson: that the exploiter may end up being exploited.

And that, to paraphrase Banharn, is what politics is all about.