Insurrection charges not justified for PAD

The People's Alliance for Democracy yesterday defied a court order instructing the group to end its occupation of Government House. Wearing military fatigues and armed with clubs, batons and bamboo sticks, hardline PAD guards built makeshift bunkers and barriers around chanting and flag-waving protesters who could have passed for concert-goers. It was a soul-searching sight for everyone - whether democracy advocates, political scientists or just normal observers.

In most countries, protesters taking over the seat of government and forcing members of the executive branch to go on the run would be unthinkable. Some of these governments would not hesitate to roll out the tanks and squash the protesters like flies. Two days without violence, however, can mean anything - that we are a unique breed of political animal or that we have managed to hold on for this long out of sheer luck.

The fact that Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej has been unable to do much does not mean he is weak. One must never overlook his three decades of political guile. He has proven this by throwing the ball to the courts, putting the judicial branch in an unwanted spotlight as he plans his next move.

Samak has done very little, yet despite praise for his generally calm response to what the public considers an act of aggression by the PAD, he has managed to stir up some controversy. First, he implored the media to choose sides. Then, he succeeded in getting the court to accept charges of insurrection against the nine PAD leaders. Insurrection is the legal equivalent of treason in the Thai political context, and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment or death.

Arrest warrants have been issued for the nine leaders. No one seems to know what will happen next. However, political opponents should not be labelled rebels who pose a great risk to the country. Of course, the PAD has branded Samak with many unfavourable names, but that is different from formally laying legal charges of insurrection.

It is not clear why Samak went for the kill in this way. But he is in danger of squandering the leverage he gained following the PAD's infamous actions on Tuesday, when the group sent scores of its members to seize government-run NBT television station. The raid involved some men armed with handguns, one with a golf club and another a slingshot. It was an incident that sent the PAD's political ratings plummeting, but should this be defined as an act of insurrection or an attempt at a coup d'état?

While the French do have a way with words, we Thais tend to stretch their definitions to satisfy our political agendas. Accusing the nine PAD leaders of committing treason is a case in point. And if we take the tradition of Thai protests into account, unruly and highly provocative mobs are anything but strange in our political culture. It is also worth noting that not so long ago, belligerent protesters sympathetic to, if not associated with, Samak's political party besieged the residence of the Privy Council's president, bombarding it with bricks and stones.

For the record, the PAD is asking for three things: the dissolution of the Samak government, that the current Constitution be kept, and that the country adopt a new form of politics - an idea recently floated, which would call for at least 30 per cent of MPs being selected, as opposed to elected, as a way to counter Thailand's long history of money politics. If you are Samak, these are provocative demands and seizing Government House to force the issue could warrant a legal response. But again, the correct legal response to such a potentially volatile situation must be calm and rational.

First of all, Samak must not equate himself with the state. He is a politician in power, and while some PAD actions may be deplorable, his government itself has taken controversial and provocative steps that fuelled the confrontation.

In the words of Foreign Minister Tej Bunnag, the current crisis is part of the country's democratic progression. Obviously, a major clash in ideologies has come to a head. If Tej is correct and this is a part of our democratic evolution, all parties concerned should be aware that this is an absolutely high-risk learning process. Everyone is walking a very thin line indeed - from Samak, who has state interests to protect and a constitutional duty to respect civil political rights, to the PAD, which is stretching the notion of civil disobedience to near breaking point.