Thailand’s youthful and urbane opposition leader, Abhisit Vejjajiva, says his country’s a mess – and admits that politicians are to blame

ABHISIT VEJJAJIVA HAS often been called a future prime minister of Thailand. Charismatic, articulate and Oxford-educated, Abhisit is a favorite of voters in Bangkok and the south of the country, but has yet to win the trust or affection of the rural majority, particularly in the northeast, whose support is necessary to gain power. These voters still hanker for the return of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a bloodless coup in 2006 and now lives in exile in the UK.

Political divisions have sundered Thai society in recent years, dragging down the economy, paralyzing the government and sowing bitterness. In October, blood was spilled on the streets when police and anti-Thaksin protesters (the People’s Alliance for Democracy) clashed outside parliament. PAD believes Thaksin is pulling the strings of the People Power Party (PPP) government. Abhisit, 44, and his Democrat Party – the country’s oldest – have been caught in the middle of this maelstrom. They have been accused of supporting the 2006 coup and surreptitiously aiding and comforting PAD. But Abhisit has also come under fire from PAD. With his country politically divided and the world confused about the situation in Thailand, Abhisit sat down with power’s Robert Horn to try and set the record straight.

Ever since you entered politics in the early 1990s, you’ve been mentioned as a future prime minister. Your detractors, however, say you aren’t ready. What makes you ready to be prime minister?
I think it’s now a familiar refrain about “lack of experience.” But you know, the world is changing fast. Sometimes you need different traits for different situations. What I can say is that Thailand needs to move forward in a world that continues to be more globalized, where market forces continue to dominate and where democracy – which encompasses not only electoral politics but also direct politics – requires good governance. I think my track record as far as these qualities go speaks for itself.

Great leaders are often associated with great visions for their country. What is your vision for Thailand, and how would Thailand be a different country under Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva?
I would build on the fundamental strengths that we already have. There used to be no fundamental conflict in society. There used to be a clear direction for Thailand in terms of embracing the global economy. And we have a very diversified economy. Not just in terms of export markets, but as one of the few food exporters. We have some key industries here, such as the automotive and electronics industries. And we are renowned for being service minded. That’s a combination we could build on. Unfortunately, the politics of failure over the last few years have damaged most of that capital in the broader sense of the word. And so the challenge is to rebuild them as quickly as possible.

And how would you do that?
The first thing is respect for the rule of law and the principles of democracy. And proving that an elected politician can be a uniter and not a divider; that an elected politician can put the interests of the whole country before his own interests and the interests of his constituency and his supporters.

An effective politician has to win, however. And, granted you’ve made some gains during the last election, but you still haven’t been able to win. Why not?
I turned a 12-million-vote deficit into a 100,000-vote deficit in three years. I don’t think that’s a small gain. And we intend to carry on. And I know it’s hard to win the hearts and minds of a number of people, particularly in the northeast, but I think I will do enough to win majority support and then prove to the remaining doubters that we really can work for them.

You mentioned the northeast. You can’t win a national election in Thailand unless you carry significant numbers there.
Let me point out it was only a 100,000-vote gap out of 30 million voters. In terms of seats, turning 30 or 40 seats from one side to the other would give us the majority.

But 30 or 40 seats can be lot …
It can be, but there are so many more seats I believe we can win. The likelihood is if we were to win an extra 30 or 40 seats, they would probably come in the central and northern regions first. But the difference between me and others who have held power or are competing for it, is that I intend to be a leader of the whole country. And if I fail to win the votes in the northeast now, then I certainly intend to win them in the future. Certainly when I get to work, I will have the most to prove to those people and I will try to do so.

There do seem to be a lot of people in the northeast who really dislike the Democrats. Why is that and how can you change it?
Traditionally we’ve been weak there. Even in the days when we were in government we only managed to win about 20 seats out of 120 or 130. I guess the situation is a vicious cycle because you don’t have the MPs, the people who speak for you, there. And our opponents have been very effective in carrying on the bad press. But when we were campaigning in December [during the last national election] and private polling was done, it showed that the northeastern people were receptive to the message we were giving. But, they were still not convinced that we could deliver, which is natural for a party that has been in the opposition for a while. And the election was successfully turned by our rivals into a referendum on the [2006] coup. We were left out of the equation.

But you weren’t left out of the equation. Your opponents seemed to successfully link you to the coup. Did you support it?
We certainly did not support the coup. I wanted the transition back to democracy to be as smooth and as quick as possible. The coup leaders made certain promises right from the start [that they would return power to the people in one year]. If they had gone back on their words we certainly would have been opposing them. But being in conflict with them wasn’t the quickest route back to democracy. It’s not too difficult for our opponents to link us to the coup because obviously we opposed Thaksin. But I can categorically state that we would have never used anti-democratic means against Thaksin. And I think we have every right to ask whether Thaksin used democratic means to beat us on a number of occasions.

Speaking of campaigning, I’ve seen you speak a number of times and your message is always clear, but you often leave me wondering what is Abhisit Vejjajiva passionate about?
Justice. And the lives of ordinary people; the rights that they should have. Not just political rights, but also economic rights.

Thailand has been going through several years of turbulence and unrest. Why is Thai politics such mess?
It’s a mess because we are still inheriting politics that puts the interests of a few before the interests of the people. The only way out of the mess is when the politicians really work for the people.

Thailand has a democratically elected government opposed by a group that has taken over its offices and calls itself the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), but actually doesn’t favor a completely elected government. They are often called royalists or representatives of the elite. It’s confusing. How would you explain it to outsiders?
I have criticized PAD a number of times on its proposals [appointed representatives as opposed to elected]. There are two faces of democracy: the first one is getting a government through the ballot box. The PAD is wrong in opposing that. And this [current] government has every right to claim it is democratically elected. But the second face of democracy is accountability. And on this issue the government is in the wrong and the PAD is in the right. A vote for you doesn’t give you a license to abuse the rights of others, to violate the constitution, to engage in corrupt practices, to try and destroy the rule of law. So, you need somebody who brings both faces of democracy together. And if you are looking at it from only one of these two sides then you will be confused.

How do you think this situation will eventually be resolved?
Well, I had hoped that despite the mess we could have done this without violence. Unfortunately, the events of October 7 led to excessive violence by the state and that has pulled us into a completely new situation. I can’t see any other way but for the government to show responsibility as any other democratic government would. In no democracy would you allow blatant abuses of power to carry on and on without resignations, or any other signs of responsibility, to ease tensions. And PAD occupying Government House [the prime minister’s offices]? How can you get so many people to come out and demonstrate for so long? Why did the government let PAD into Government House? Only a month before [the successful occupation], PAD attempted to get into Government House but were stopped. There is no way the PAD could have gotten in if the government took the necessary steps [to stop them]. The government deliberately let PAD in so it would allow them to use force. But it backfired, and they couldn’t get PAD out.

When it comes to resolving this situation, a lot of the people opposed to PAD and the Democrats and the coup have an emotional bond to Thaksin. Can this situation be resolved without him?
Let me turn the question around: can the situation be resolved with Thaksin? He is still pulling the strings – that’s the problem. Clearly, if he is still trying to get involved in power plays, it is hard to resolve the situation. Thaksin’s popularity is not surprising if you have five years of mainstream media going one way, tightly controlled. Why are dictators so popular? Because they control all channels of communication and information. If there had been a free and fair media during Thaksin’s time, I’m sure the situation now would be different.

Are the Democrats surreptitiously supporting PAD, as the government claims?
Do you think the government would not accuse us of being linked with PAD? The PAD and Democrat supporters have one thing in common – fighting injustices perpetrated by Thaksin. But we certainly don’t share the same objectives. I get criticized regularly by PAD because I don’t agree with their proposals.

But they support you for prime minister. Isn’t that the kiss of death with people who are upset with PAD?
I can’t stop people from expressing their preferences.

What should happen to PAD leaders?
They should face the consequences of the law.

Do you think what PAD has done will affect your party’s image when it comes time for an election?
It might, but nobody knows until the election comes. It did not affect the Bangkok gubernatorial election [won by incumbent Democrat Apirak Kosayodhin].

When do you think we’ll have another election?
Probably no later than mid-2009.

Because…
Because I can’t see how this government can go on governing the country, especially after they have used violence.

What do you think is your greatest strength as a politician?
Honesty and being principled, and I have no personal agenda or interest.

And your greatest weakness?
I’m not your typical politician.

Any final thoughts?
I would like to reaffirm my belief in my country, my belief in the people of Thailand and think what has failed us most is politics. And as a politician I have to share some responsibility for that. But I will do whatever I can to prove to people that there is politics of hope down the line, and we are going to put an end to this politics of failure.