Farewell to a man without ideology

Banharn’s last days saw that game change dramatically, as political factions were sidelined. Interestingly, the declining influence of medium-sized parties and splinter groups, both strongly condemned at their peak when they overthrew governments for fun, coincided with a steep rise in the cutthroat nature of Thai politics. During the political turbulence triggered by the confrontation between the Shinawatras and their opponents, many observers lamented the passing of the days when just 20 MPs could change a government without the need for mass protests, tear gas or tanks on the streets.

News headlines claim that Banharn’s death has left Chart Thai Pattana rudderless. The truth is that, in the big picture, it doesn’t matter much. Banharn himself had been fading from politics for years, as Thaksin Shinawatra and his opponents came to dominate. Banharn could have claimed at least some of the spotlight, but his party had different ideas. It chose to take shelter under Thaksin’s wing most of the time, and that was the end of the story.

Those familiar with Banharn’s political vehicle were not the least bit surprised by its action. It was called “a party of eels” (sometimes “a party of eels on skates”) for good reason. If it didn’t win an election itself, it always sided with the winner. Being in opposition could  “starve you to death”, were the controversial but defining words of the party’s leadership.

But we can’t blame the “eels” alone for Thailand’s slide down the two-party slippery slope towards political degradation. A constitutional clause, apparently designed in good faith, made it a lot harder for small parties and factions to manoeuvre against the prime minister. The skates were taken off the eels, so to speak.

In truth factional politics is what most Thai politicians secretly prefer, because it empowers them. But a system in which there are neither genuine friends nor real foes has proved to be a double-edged sword for Thailand. The downside is that, most of the time, splinter groups have been motivated by vested interests. Yet when MPs have had to toe the party line while, say, having to vote on a no-confidence debate, the argument for their “independence” has had the upper hand.

Banharn thrived under the faction-friendly system. It didn’t matter whether his party was big or small at the time, because he was a good negotiator. No matter how tricky a situation was, more often than not, he would broker a way through it.

In a way, Banharn was a “miniature version” of Thaksin. Visitors to Suphan Buri, Banharn’s home province and political base, could testify to that. He was a master at capturing and utilising state budgets for his stomping ground’s benefit, but he was always hounded by scandal. In the eyes of many Suphan Buri locals, he was a god. Outsiders tend to be more sceptical, even downright accusatory.

Among key differences between the two men were, perhaps, Banharn’s humility and ideas regarding “when to stop” and how far political vengeance should go. Before Thaksin’s rise, it was Banharn who represented “rural” politics, but showdowns with opponents were mostly limited to the floor of Parliament, hush-hush meetings of turncoats and leaked evidence of corruption. Ordinary Thais were kept out of the way – in other words, not asked to fight on the politicians’ behalf.

In a way, Banharn typified the style of Thai politicians of previous generations. They were willing to be deemed devils elsewhere but would do whatever was necessary to appease their support bases. The two-party system has now overshadowed that individual role. In many cases, the party logo on your jacket is more important than what you really do. Is that good or bad for Thailand? This is as tough a question as asking whether splinter groups should be constitutionally empowered to overthrow a government.

Where does Chart Thai Pattana go from here? To be fair, the question is far less significant than that of what the Pheu Thai and Democrat parties should do now. The big political camps that make up Thailand’s virtual two-party system have a lot more to do than Banharn’s old outfit, given the state the country is in. Pheu Thai is misguided in its attitude toward the middle-class, while the Democrats are wrong in assuming that their rival merely bought its way to power. It’s an ideological issue that Banharn always stayed away from. Whether he knew better or not is open to debate.

May the man rest in peace.