Boycott,the easy, but wrong, way out

Tempting though the option is, the Opposition is ill-advised to boycott the general election. Instead, it should uphold good faith beyond Mr Thaksin.

Thailand's opposition parties are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has snookered them with his decision on Feb 24 to dissolve the Lower House to pave way for a new general election. The House dissolution has taken some steam off the anti-Thaksin coalition protesting in the streets, putting the onus on the Democrat party-led Opposition to play by the rules in what is almost certainly going to be another overwhelming victory for the Thai Rak Thai party at the polls and a new mandate for Mr Thaksin's prospective third time at the helm.

In dissolving the Lower House and setting the poll date for April 2, Mr Thaksin has demonstrated his unsportsmanlike conduct and his disdain for fair play yet again.
Just hours prior to announcing the snap election, he exploited incumbency advantages by increasing salaries for civil servants, publicising a one-sided open letter to his constituents to clear his name from the Shin Corp scandal, and putting a tight time-frame on the snap election.

These manoeuvres were designed to maximise the element of surprise and leave the Opposition with an insufficient interval to field candidates, mobilise funds and prepare campaign platforms.

The opposition parties, in other words, are being challenged into the ring as a lightweight with one hand tied, against the TRT as heavyweight with the referee and the rules apparently in its favour, and the spectators paid and enticed to cheer it on.

Unsurprisingly, the Opposition wants to baulk. As the Chart Thai party dithered, the Democrat and Mahachon parties opted to boycott the general election, thereby denying the TRT the electoral legitimacy that would come from its probable triumph at the polls.

Boycotting the election would also be an act of protest against the government's manipulation and Mr Thaksin's usurpation of constitutional mechanisms.

Staying out of the election would also save scarce funds. While the TRT's war chest is practically infinite, given the government largesse that Mr Thaksin has deployed in his populist policies and given Mr Thaksin's huge family wealth following the Shin Corp sale of 73.3 billion baht, the opposition parties can ill-afford to squander their limited coffers.

Given the rising political temperature, there may well be more than one election this year, and hence the need to conserve campaign funds among opposition parties. At the same time, however, staying out of the election would incur political costs for the Opposition.

It is likely to be seen as undemocratic by large swathes of the electorate, undermining the Opposition's credibility. It would also be a bizarre counter-measure by international standards, where professional politicians are supposed to contest elections eagerly, energetically and enthusiastically.

Boycotting the election would further preclude opposition politicians from taking over in the event the prime minister succumbs to the anti-Thaksin forces and is forced into resignation after the election, as only sitting MPs are eligible to lead the government. Perhaps most fundamentally, skipping the election goes against the basic instincts of many opposition politicians who have weathered through the ups, downs and sideways of Thai elections over decades.

In view of the inadvisability of the boycott, the Opposition has thrown the ball back into Mr Thaksin's court by issuing a de facto ultimatum of political reform to which the government must agree in return for opposition participation in the election. This move puts pressure on Mr Thaksin, as he is compelled to show his true intentions towards rewriting the rules for greater accountability and a level electoral playing field.

But regardless of Thai Rak Thai's decision on the pre-election pact for political reform _ which prospectively begins with the revision of Article 313, the Opposition _ particularly the Democrat party, will have to bite the bullet on whether to contest on April 2. It is a tempting counterpunch to boycott the election and thereby deprive Mr Thaksin of personal satisfaction and electoral legitimacy. The parliamentary Opposition is being urged to take this road by the anti-Thaksin movement in the streets, revolving around the People's Alliance for Democracy, who will settle for no less than Mr Thaksin's immediate resignation.

However, the Opposition should take a long view. They should try to maintain their own semblance of legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate, even if this will mean suffering another major defeat at the polls. The Thai people deserve to have a viable government-in-waiting in the event of Mr Thaksin's political demise in the months ahead.

If the Opposition opts out of the election, the people will be robbed of parliamentary forces who they could look to in the near future as a replacement if Mr Thaksin's rule comes to an abrupt end. Participation in the election demands hard campaign work with heavy financial burdens and uncertain rewards.

Opposition numbers may not rise at the polls, but the Democrats in particular should think beyond Mr Thaksin's departure. They need to provide the Thai people with an alternative leadership with a workable foresight into what is wrong and what is right about Thailand and where and how it should proceed in future. They need to act in good faith and maintain popular trust in the spirit of the reform movement that led to the 1997 Constitution. Such patience and perseverance is not as attractive as an election boycott, but it is likely to yield greater dividends in anticipation of Mr Thaksin's growing excesses, abuses of power and eventual downfall.

Indeed, there is sometimes virtue in defeat.

Thitinan Pongsudhirak is assistant professor of International Political Economy with Department of International Relations, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.