A Message To The Generals

Abramowitz, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was U.S. ambassador to Thailand 1978-81.

Military coups have been mostly a spectator sport in Thailand, much like sex scandals in the United States. I once asked a senior Thai general after an attempted coup by army officers why the plotters had been allowed to go free after several months. In Korea, they would have been shot. He smiled. "You know," he said, "it doesn't snow in Thailand."

Last week it snowed in Thailand. The army tried to legitimize its coup, but this time the people of Bangkok refused to lie down. The drama may not be over--and the Thai snow will affect the weather across East Asia.

Many countries would love to have Thailand's rate of growth, but the country right now is a mess. Its polities are rotten and its military-the ostensible guardian of stability-is divided and derided. If the past is any guide, we will see the typical Thai response to conflict: a shuffle of leaders, some intervention or soothing words by the king, possible constitutional changes, followed by the usual dishonest elections somewhere down the road. The government changes, but not the system. Maybe it will work again. But the people's anger against the military runs deep.

Two factors converged. First, the Thai political system has failed. Elections in the last two decades inevitably led to disillusion, mismanagement, occasional farce and, ultimately, coups. Corruption grew with the Thai economy. Elections in many provinces became a vote-buying orgy with increasing spoils the prize. The political process this March produced what many Thais claim was the most corrupt cabinet in their history--a real achievement, Second, the current military leaders, led by the prime minister, Gen. Suchinda Kraprayoon, were no longer content, as in the '80s, to let civilian leaders take increasing charge. Fearful perhaps of their growing irrelevance, they insisted on asserting their political dominance. But the military was divided, and leading the people of Bangkok was a fiercely ambitious ascetic, former general and governor of Bangkok, Chamlong Srimuang. Chamlong is a sort of Thai Ross Perot, without the evasiveness. He takes no prisoners and (if he survives) adds a welcome element of unpredictability to Thai politics. His determined opposition and his rallying of the public against Suchinda led to the showdown.

This is not the first time the Thai military has run up against the people. In 1973 the students rebelled against the corruption of military leaders, who fled the country (but ultimately returned). Three years later the civilian government fell to the military, thanks to the politicians' ineptitude, continuing disorder and the fear of Vietnam in the wake of the American defeat.

General Suchinda justified his 1991 coup in terms of civilian corruption. In fact the Thai military, like others in Southeast Asia, has been as much a commercial enterprise as a military one. Many officers spend more time on business boards than in the field. In Cambodia and Myanmar local military leaders combine strategy and business, working with Thai businessmen to despoil the forests of both countries and help finance the Khmer Rouge and the Burmese military. There are of course many dedicated officers, but the system turned too many colonels into businessmen once they reached the rank of general officer.

The Thai tolerance for military rule has diminished. Vast economic growth generated a large middle class; freedom, education and information whetted an appetite for political reform. The people see no reason for the military to continue to rule the roost. They will no longer accept both a corrupt cabinet and military domination. It's not clear that politicians can put it all together any better. But whatever the outcome of the current crisis, democracy has asserted itself in Thailand. It is not simply an import from sanctimonious Americans. The Thais have sent a message to all of Asia: it's time for the military to get off center stage and time for greater public participation.

In the short term, from China to Indonesia, the message will probably not be heeded. More likely, the opposite. Militaries still dominate in much of Asia, and the will not be enamored of the events in Bangkok. But the advance toward democracy, however fitful, will ultimately mean a decline in their power and position. In the postwar world, East Asia's militaries provided an important measure of stability as nations economically transformed themselves, virtually in one generation. But their days of actually running governments are probably numbered, as economies become too complex and politics too large for them to dominate. The end of the cold war will also weaken their position.

The military retreat from polities in Asia will be difficult, even in Thailand, where freedom has been great. Soldiers will still be needed to maintain domestic order and manage ethnic violence, and attempts to develop genuine political participation and stability run up against history and custom. There will be upheavals along the way-but over time Thailand and the other Southeast Asian countries will reach better and more pluralistic solutions.

It is important that our Asian friends know that the United States stands firmly for support of democratic forces. We also need our Japanese ally to do more than avert its gaze. But the task of political development is now the Asians'--the days of U.S. tinkering are over. Southeast Asia has a long way to go toward democracy. The snow is not finished.