Frustrations Erupt. Bangkok Burns.

After months of seismic activity, political tensions erupted in Bangkok Sunday with red shirt protesters of the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) engaged in running battles with troops.

Public buses were set on fire. Enraged gangs hurled Molotov cocktails at soldiers who responded with teargas and gunfire. Skirmishes were also reported between rival civilian groups in several areas of the Bangkok; evidence of the dangerously deep social and political rifts which are driving the current unrest. Ninety four people were reported injured of which twenty three seriously.

The storm clouds of this conflict have been gathering for months, years even; the culmination of a tussle for political power that could determine the landscape of Thai politics for the foreseeable future.

On one side are unruly protesters who threaten the fabric of public order, on the other soldiers and police acting on behalf of the State to restore calm.

In Thailand today, however, there are no neutral institutions capable of acting on behalf of a benign State.

The entire system has become politicized and polarized. There are no government institutions that are perceived as independent. The troops on the streets of Bangkok are part of the political process and are seen as agents of partisan interest. This politicisation of the State means that the machinery of democracy, with its necessary checks and balances, cannot function.

The violence that has eroded Thailand’s hard won image as a tranquil haven for global travelers is a symptom of deep disunity in the country; a clash of interests between the minority forces of the traditional elite and the aspirations of Thailand’s majority, most of who live in countryside.

In this sense the unrest we are witnessing today is substantially different from other memorable political upheavals of Thailand’s recent past.

In 1992, when a ‘mobile phone mob’ confronted military dictator Suchinda Kraprayoon, the demonstrations were limited to Bangkok and were aimed at maintaining a status quo that protected the economic and political interests of the upper and middle class.

In 1973 and 1976, two other significant moments in modern Thai history, the conflict was between right and left wing forces. But in the 1970s, despite a communist sponsored insurgency in the north and northeast, political engagement and leadership, particularly on the left, was essentially limited to Thailand's educated elite. Thus left-wing protests during this period were led by students and were limited to Bangkok.

The nature of the unrest we are seeing today is different in that it mobilises a much broader group of actors. The divisions are a nationwide phenomenon. Where earlier political conflicts were limited challenges that took place within the arena of middle class and urban society, today’s conflagration has drawn in supporters from throughout the social spectrum from both urban and rural sectors

If this sounds like the setting for a revolution, one must also remember that there is precious little ideology on either side of Thailand's divide. For the leaders on both sides, the struggle is for raw power, for control over the levers of State and the bounty that such control can deliver.

More fundamentally, Thailand is facing a challenge of inclusiveness and equality. Its society and politics have traditionally been based on hierarchy. In recent years, however, the concept of democratic rights and participation, propagated by State sponsored awareness campaigns, have become increasingly rooted in popular thinking, challenging the inherent inequality that a hierarchical society requires.

As Thailand reaped the rewards of economic growth in 1990s, this inequality in society escalated. Yet while the elites have become richer and perhaps by extension more detached from their less fortunate counterparts, the poor have also become more educated and by extension more aware of their rights.

If Thailand is to find a way forward and if it is to find a resolution to the conflicts being played out on the streets of the capital today, it must find a way to include and appease the aspirations of its less fortunate majority.

One option is repression. The forces of the traditional elite, through the State, certainly have the tools to repress. But this would surely be a temporary solution serving only to perpetuate the frustrations of many millions of Thais. Unity through inclusion and reconciliation can be the only way forward. Such unity can only be reached through enlightened leadership which seeks to rise above partisan interests, to reconcile differences and to address with sincerity and honesty the concerns of all parties. Until such leadership emerges the current instability and conflict will continue.