by JOHANNA SON

BANGKOK — Anti-government protesters make up a sea of yellow and the other side, red. Look familiar? To Filipinos, yes: Yellow, after all, is the Pinoy color of protest, bringing back the angry-turned-euphoric days of the civilian-led revolt against the dictator Ferdinand Marcos in February 1986. Red, meanwhile, was favored by the Marcos loyalists.

	COPS keep tight watch across the United Nations complex in old Bangkok, near where the PAD protesters are camped out. [photo by Johanna Son]

The political divisions in the Thai political drama are quite different from 1986 Philippines, not least because the anti-government groups actually want to go back to a time of fewer elective positions in government and argue that democracy has not worked in this country. But several other scenes unfolding here trigger memory buttons for Filipinos, who consider themselves veterans in the culture of protest.

In late August, the yellow crowds in the Thai capital, wanting to chase the elected prime minister and government out of power, occupied and blocked symbols of state power after months of rallies that had begun in May. As emotions ran high, so did talk of “people power,” a phrase coined from the Philippines’ Edsa Revolution (version 1.0), as well as “direct participation in democracy,” and “the people’s voice.”

Over and over, newspapers, radio and television here use two words: prachathipathai (“democracy” in Thai) and prachachon (“the people”). Democracy and the people — they were mantras of Filipinos, too.

Many of the same questions arise: Who, exactly, are “the people”? Where lies the line between mob power and genuine popular revolt? Does democracy play out when elected leaders elected are booted out by protesters, who in effect overturn this nationwide mandate? At what point does unpopularity merit the ouster of a leader, instead of waiting for the next poll?

For sure Thailand comes from a very different perspective and history, and simplistic comparisons do not work, even with a neighboring nation that has undergone similar experiences. Yet the current political turmoil in Bangkok can prompt even a non-Filipino to revisit the Philippines’ own journey to democracy, one that has been long, bumpy, and remains unfinished. It also makes one try to recall the universal democratic values that people — whatever culture or region they come from — aspire for.

WORD POWER PLAY

It’s confusing enough that here in the Thai capital, both the pros and the antis claim to be democratic and to represent the views of the people of this country of 66 million.

	Location map of Thailand courtesy of Wikipedia

Consider the names of the groups involved in this political battle: “People Power Party” (PPP), which cobbled together a government after the December 2007 polls and nominated Samak Sundaravej as prime minister. “People’s Alliance for Democracy” (PAD) is the group that has been leading the protests against Samak, who it accuses of being a mere proxy of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra (now in exile in Britain and seeking political asylum there to escape corruption charges).

Last Sept. 9, the Constitutional Court ruled that Samak had to leave the prime ministership because he had violated a constitutional bar on private employment and conflict-of-interest provisions when he continued to host cooking shows while in office. But PAD may not be satisfied until PPP itself lets go of the reins of government.

“New politics” is even what PAD leaders call their proposal to have 70 percent of Parliament — the fulcrum of popular representation in just about any system — appointed instead of elected. To political analysts, this is the most worrisome aspect of the protests cloaked in the garb of popular action: PAD protesters are presenting a formula for regression of democracy on the argument that voters (mainly out of Bangkok and supportive of Thaksin’s populist moves) did not know any better and were deceived into backing the current government.

At the same time, many of those drawn to the protest rallies appear to have joined in not because of what they are for, but because of what they are against: the not-exactly-charming or progressive Samak.

The crisis has brought out the deep fissures in Thai society, one that many now acknowledge openly. “It seems everybody is divided,” says an environmental activist. “Really, it’s very individual. Even within one organization, there are different views. Even families are divided.”

At one point, many just wanted the tensions to end — whichever way, whatever the implications — if only to get the protesters off the streets. Yet even now that Samak’s stint in office is over, it’s unclear what will happen next. Says Van, who works at a local administrative court: “I don’t think the crisis is finished. It is just toned down, but it will be back again, I believe.”

Some Thais say they are uncomfortable feeling like there are only two sides to choose from — the thinking that “if you’re not with me, then you’re against me” — when they don’t identify with the political motives on either side.

They are also concerned over adding more cracks in a society that has heretofore put value on a united exterior, as well as fears of violence, fears of unknown political territory ahead, apart from the usual concerns about the impact on the economy. Indeed, these are far from normal days in a society where conflict in daily life is usually dealt with more subtly, without overflowing clearly into the open.