No products in the basket.
Bangladesh Protests: a Cautionary Tale for Authoritarian Regimes?
Most authoritarian regimes are not openly despotic. To seem legitimate, they adopt at least some of the outer forms of a rules-based democracy. Weaponising the courts is a favourite tactic. A regime can claim it is merely upholding the law, and that the opposition are common criminals.
The recent protests in Bangladesh have highlighted the complex interplay between citizen activism and governmental authority. Sparked by long-standing grievances over a controversial quota system, the demonstrations escalated following a high court ruling that reignited public dissent. For neighboring countries, the unfolding situation in Bangladesh serves as a reminder of the need for political responsiveness and the potential consequences of failing to address the underlying issues that fuel public discontent.
- The ousting of Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina by student protesters signals a potentially significant shift in the country’s politics, with implications for other authoritarian regimes in Asia.
- The refusal of the military to use force against the student protests contributed to Sheikh Hasina’s resignation and exile, highlighting the power of non-violent resistance in effecting political change.
- Many authoritarian regimes are not overtly tyrannical. To maintain a veneer of legitimacy, they often emulate the superficial aspects of a rules-based democracy.
This regime change has economic and geopolitical implications, including its impact on India, the potential for Chinese influence, and possible repercussions for regional geopolitics and the broader implications for Asian politics. Authoritarian governments may appear unassailable until they are abruptly overthrown, as the former prime minister of Bangladesh learned this week when she fled the country.
In fact, according to Reuters and the Japanese daily Nikkei Asia, it was the decision of the army’s top brass not to shoot at the protesters when the police were themselves overwhelmed by the events that forced the Prime Minister to resign and then, a few hours later, to go into exile. Since then, a precarious calm has reigned in the country where students loudly proclaim their desire for democracy and an end to corruption. The police, hated for the brutality committed during the demonstrations, are invisible. It is students who, at the crossroads of the capital, regulate traffic.
These events underscore the delicate balance between maintaining public order and respecting the right to peaceful protest. They also offer a stark lesson for authoritarian regimes worldwide: ignoring or suppressing citizens’ voices can lead to widespread unrest and political upheaval
But this refusal by military leaders to obey the authorities to crush the rebellion, as exemplary as it may be, cannot, at least in the short term, be replicated in other authoritarian or totalitarian countries in the region, particularly those where a communist regime has been consolidated over the years. Thus we remember that, on the orders of Deng Xiaoping, the reforming master of China at the time, the soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army did not hesitate to fire live ammunition on the demonstrators, mainly students from the capital’s major universities, gathered in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989.
Elsewhere, Vietnam is also a police state where any mass protest would be detected well before it degenerated into a real threat to the regime. The same is more or less true in Laos, also communist, as well as in Cambodia, whose regime is largely subservient to China.
The Dissolution of Thailand’s Main Opposition Party: A Blow to Democratic Ideals
The recent dissolution of Thailand’s main opposition party, the Move Forward Party, has sent shockwaves through the nation and the international community. The Constitutional Court’s unanimous ruling on politically motivated allegations of treason for advocating reform of the lèse-majesté law has resulted in a ten-year ban on political activity for its executive members.
This decision has been met with widespread criticism. Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have condemned the move as a severe violation of the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and democratic participation. The United Nations has also expressed concern, highlighting the impact on fundamental freedoms.
The United States is deeply concerned by Thailand’s Constitutional Court ruling today ordering the dissolution of the Move Forward Party and the banning of 11 of its leaders from politics.
This decision disenfranchises the more than 14 million Thais who voted for the Move Forward Party in the May 2023 election and raises questions about their representation within Thailand’s electoral system. The Constitutional Court’s decision also jeopardizes Thailand’s democratic progress and runs counter to the aspirations of the Thai people for a strong, democratic future.
On the Dissolution of Move Forward Party in Thailand – United States Department of State
The Move Forward Party, which secured the largest number of seats in the May 2023 general elections, represented a significant portion of the Thai electorate. Its dissolution raises serious questions about the state of democracy in Thailand, a country that has publicly committed to global leadership on human rights by applying for a seat at the UN Human Rights Council.
The use of the lèse-majesté law has been a contentious issue in Thailand, with calls for reform to prevent its misuse in stifling dissent. The recent actions against the Move Forward Party have only intensified these concerns, suggesting a trend of using legal mechanisms to suppress opposition voices
The former leader of Thailand’s banned Move Forward party, Pita Limjaroenrat, accuses the conservative establishment of using the legal system and military to undermine democratic progress. The party’s dissolution over its pledge to reform the lese majesty law, which protects the monarchy, has raised concerns from international bodies. Pita believes that the establishment is protecting its own interests under the pretext of safeguarding the monarchy.
Many authoritarian regimes are not overtly tyrannical. To maintain a veneer of legitimacy, they often emulate the superficial aspects of a rules-based democracy. The strategic manipulation of courts is a common tactic. Such regimes may assert that they are simply enforcing the law, branding the opposition as mere criminals.
In Thailand, the effectiveness of the government’s recent efforts to suppress public dissent remains uncertain. Authoritarian regimes may appear unassailable until they are abruptly overthrown, a reality the former prime minister of Bangladesh, who fled the country this week, has come to realize.
Discover more from Thailand Business News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
