谁会认为泰国不好？人民可爱动人、海滩令人沉醉、绿咖喱鸡妙不可言。仰慕者表示，连续的政变和稍现即逝的宪法让这个国家的政治史显得问题重重，但实际上并不像看起来那么糟糕。政治动荡掩盖了一种奇特的稳定状态，正是这种稳定使泰国成为外国人投资和海外度假偏爱的目的地。没错，这个国家依然存在贫穷和严重的贫富不均。但东南亚哪个国家不是如此？不过泰国人民似乎对自己的命运没有什么不满，而且至少没有人在挨饿。就连现任总理、在牛津接受教育的阿披实•维乍集瓦(Abhisit Vejjajiva)看起来也是个非常得体的家伙，而且还相当有魅力。
洗个冷水澡清醒清醒吧。没有人会忌妒许多人对这个“微笑之国”(land of smiles)怀有好感。但对泰国怀有的这种亲切但又模糊的情绪正与现实日益相左。若非如此，当目睹阿披实政府对要求举行大选的民众进行镇压（特举一例）、并射杀了60多名平民时，全世界却表现得相对镇静，对此又该如何解释呢？
类似去年伊朗武力镇压民主示威游行之后国际社会的那种声讨局面几乎没有出现，更不用说对1989年天安门事件的谴责了。想象一下，如果在希腊，叫嚣着反对厉行节俭的示威人群遭到轻型机关枪扫射，国际社会会爆发出怎样的强烈抗议。
当然，这种比较存在瑕疵。与所有的混乱冲突一样，泰国的局势绝不是黑白分明的——或者用泰国人的话说，黄红分明。色码无法阐明事情的全貌。分析师过于迫切地寻找简单化的解释，比如城乡冲突、农民与城市精英群体的冲突、以及拥护共和者和拥护民主立宪者的冲突。正如阿披实政府所断言的，红杉军民主运动无疑也存在一些暴力成分。尽管19日许多因害怕而投降的示威者是手无寸铁的女性，但也有一些年轻男子携有磨尖的棍棒和自制炸药。酒店和其它公共场所都遭到了攻击。
另外，由被赶下台的泰国前总理他信•西那瓦(Thaksin Shinawatra)作为民主体制的形象代言人，确实也是漏洞百出——许多示威者就是以他的名义举行集会的。在2001至2006年担任总理期间，他信被控利用职权偏袒其家族企业和裙带关系，同时泰国警方被指责假借打击贩毒之名非法杀害了数千人。泰国最高法院进行了缺席审判，判处他信因公私利益冲突罪入狱两年。严格来说，这让他信成为了逃避法律责任的亡命徒，就和阿披实政府对他的定性一样。
但这远非事情的全貌。那些现在只会呼吁大家冷静、要求回归原状的人必须直面其它一些事实。首先，他信是泰国历史上最受拥护的总理，是唯一干满了整个任期又再次当选的总理。他是以泰国的传统方式——2006年的一场军事政变——被赶下台的。在随后的选举中——经过了一段荒唐可笑、混乱不堪的军事统治时期后——一个忠于他信的政府执掌了政权。这届政府以及其后一届亲他信政府都根据军制宪法的可疑条款被解散。不希望和他信有任何瓜葛的人最终在2008年得偿所愿，根据一项议会协议临时拼凑而成了阿披实领导的政府——但尚未得到民众认可。
其次，红杉军抗议群体明显代表的是合理的社会诉求——这个事实可以说比他信及其政治盟友被撵下台的方式更能说明问题。试图将成千上万走上街头的泰国民众（大多是穷苦出身）描述成“恐怖分子”、或是他信的雇佣兵，实在是说不过去。
他信是增强泰国人民（主要来自北部和东北，但不限于此）政治权利意识的催化剂，他们此前一直被隔绝在政治经济权利的魔法圈之外。他信执行的那些相对温和的政策（例如廉价医疗和更好的信贷获取渠道）为他赢得了民众几近狂热的拥护，这就是原因所在。给“他信经济”(Thaksinomics)冠以污名，说它不过是民粹主义者对乌合之众的贿赂，是一种高傲的表现。对于那些急切希望紧紧抓住自己的安逸现状不放的人，这也是自私的行为。
和泰国前几次的政治僵局不同，这一次泰国受人尊敬的国王普密蓬•阿杜德(Bhumibol Adulyadej)没有采取行动来安抚局势。也许像有些人所宣称的那样，这是因为他已年迈体衰。但也有可能是因为，据他判断，这次泰国社会底层人士的力量无法轻易得到遏制。截至19日晚，曼谷街头已经恢复了几分平静。但没有人会误认为这代表着潜在的紧张局面已经得到解决。最乐观地来看，要解决问题必须进行公正的选举——并尊重选举结果。最悲观地来看，这意味着更多流血冲突，或是在曼谷或是在乡村地区。即便是泰国最热忱的拥趸也必须意识到，这场危机尚未结束。
译者/何黎
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001032756
Who could think badly of Thailand? The people are lovely, the beaches divine and the green chicken curry outstanding. The country's apparently troubled political history of serial coups and quick-vanishing constitutions, say its many admirers, is not as bad as it appears. It masks an odd kind of stability that has made Thailand a favoured destination for foreign investment and foreign vacations alike. True, there is poverty and great disparity of wealth. Where in south-east Asia isn't there? But the people appear pretty content with their lot, and at least no one is starving. Even the current prime minister, the Oxford-educated Abhisit Vejjajiva, seems like a thoroughly decent chap, and terribly dishy to boot.
Now take a cold shower. No one would begrudge the goodwill that many people have for the Land of Smiles. But warm and fuzzy sentiments towards Thailand are increasingly at odds with reality. How else to explain the relative equanimity with which the world has just witnessed Mr Abhisit's government crush those calling for elections (of all things), shooting dead more than 60 civilians?
There has been little of the international condemnation that followed last year's crackdowns against pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran, let alone those in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Imagine the outcry if, in Greece, the rowdy anti-austerity demonstrators had been mown down with sub-machine guns.
Certainly, such comparisons are imperfect. The situation, like any messy confrontation, is far from black and white – or yellow and red in the Thai parlance. The colour codes do not tell the whole story. Analysts too readily reach for simplistic explanations of city versus countryside, peasants versus an urban elite, and republicans versus monarchists. Doubtless too, as Mr Abhisit's government maintains, the Red Shirt pro-democracy movement does contain a violent fringe. Though many of the demonstrators terrified into surrender yesterday were unarmed women, some of the young men were carrying sharpened staves and homemade explosives. Hotels and other public places have been attacked.
It is also true that Thaksin Shinawatra, the ousted former prime minister in whose name many of the demonstrators rallied, is a deeply flawed poster-boy for democracy. As prime minister from 2001 to 2006, he was accused of using his power to favour the businesses of his family and associated cronies, while Thai police were blamed for thousands of extra-judicial killings in the name of a war on drugs. Thailand's Supreme Court sentenced him in absentia to two years in jail for conflict of interest. Technically, that makes Mr Thaksin the fugitive from the law Mr Abhisit's government says he is.
But this is far from the whole story. Those who would now simply call for calm and a return to the status quo ante must face other facts. First, Mr Thaksin was the most popular prime minister in Thailand's history, the only one to serve a full term and be re-elected. He was ousted, in traditional Thai fashion, by a military coup in 2006. In subsequent elections – after a laughably haphazard period of military rule – a government loyal to Mr Thaksin came to power. That administration, and the following pro-Thaksin incarnation, were both dissolved under dubious clauses of the military-imposed constitution. Those who did not want anything to do with Mr Thaksin finally got their way in 2008 when the government of Mr Abhisit – which has yet to win a popular mandate – was stitched together in a parliamentary deal.
Second, and almost more telling than the way in which Mr Thaksin and his political allies were bundled out of power, is the fact that the Red Shirt protesters clearly represent legitimate social grievances. Attempts to portray the tens of thousands of mainly poor Thais who took to Bangkok's streets as “terrorists” or paid mercenaries of Mr Thaksin simply do not wash.
Mr Thaksin was a catalyst for the political empowerment of Thais – mainly, but not exclusively, from the north and north-east – who had previously been excluded from the magic circle of political and economic power. That is why the relatively modest policies he put in place – such as cheap healthcare and better access to credit – won him almost fanatical allegiance. To brand Thaksinomics as merely populist bribes for a rented rabble is condescending. For those desperately seeking to cling on to their comfortable existence, it is also self-serving.
Unlike in previous stand-offs, Bhumibol Adulyadej, Thailand's revered king, has not acted to calm the situation. That may be, as some contend, because he is old and in failing health. Just as likely, he has judged that the forces of Thailand's underclass cannot, this time, be so easily contained. By last night the streets of Bangkok had returned to a sort of calm. Yet few could mistake this for any kind of resolution of the underlying tensions. At best, such resolution will require fair elections – and respect for the result. At worst, it will mean more bloody confrontation, in Bangkok or in the countryside. Even the most ardent fan of Thailand must realise this isn't over yet.
没有评论:
发表评论