Thailand is deeply divided on class and regional lines, with the Bangkok monarchist elite engaged in a brutal battle with the Shinawatra clan as a Malay-Muslim insurgency rages furiously.

This week, bombs went off in Thailand’s tourist towns. This came as a rude shock to much of the world that has come to see Thailand as an idyllic paradise with magical food, sublime natural beauty and sensuous sex. This paradise-like reputation is a godsend for tourism, making it roughly 9% of the $395 billion Thai economy. It also helped Thailand bounce back rapidly after the 2004 tsunami. These bombings threaten to tarnish Thailand’s reputation profoundly.

Prima facie, the attacks were minor. Eleven small bombings across multiple cities barely killed four people. By contrast, there was much more violence elsewhere in the world. A suicide bombing in the Pakistani city of Quetta killed 70 people. In Brazil, a vicious drug war rages in Rio despite the fortune authorities are spending on security for the Olympics. In Syria, fighting intensified in Aleppo with rebel groups and regime forces going hammer and tongs at each other.

So, why are bombings in Thailand more significant?

Thailand is going through a protracted political crisis. Yet this crisis has not led to mass violence or civil war. Even terror attacks have been few and far between. In particular, the idyllic tourist destinations in the southern part of Thailand have been untouched by violence. With these bombings, to quote William Butler Yeats, “all changed, changed utterly” and a terrifying monster has been born.

As Al Jazeera observes, the bombings occurred on “the eve of Queen Sirikit’s 84^th birthday and just before the first anniversary of a Bangkok shrine bombing that killed 20.” Germans, Italians, Dutch and Austrians were among the injured. Significantly, the bombs exploded a few days after Thai voters supported a draft constitution backed by a military-appointed committee.

Needless to say, this constitution has many opponents. Since 2014, the military has ruled the roost after a rather messy coup. Barely 55% of the 50 million eligible voters turned up to cast their ballot. In the run-up to the referendum, campaigning was banned and dozens were detained. Thailand’s biggest political parties have rejected the constitution.

Thai authorities are claiming “domestic sabotage” by the losers of the referendum. They rule out both international terrorism and separatist insurgents fighting Thai forces in the three southernmost Malay-Muslim provinces. Independent observers blame these insurgents as the bombs bear their signature style. Furthermore, the bombings took place on the anniversary of the disappearance of Haji Sulong Abdul Kadir al-Fatani. Haji Sulong is a hero for Malay-Muslims and is widely presumed to have been killed by the Thai military in 1954. Over the last 12 years, a bloody Malay-Muslim insurgency has killed more than 6,000 people.

Despite such bloodshed, the Malay-Muslim insurgency is a sideshow in Thai politics. The country is currently cleft in twain in a bitter struggle for power. On one side is the Shinawatra clan, led by Thaksin Shinawatra who was a popular prime minister before the military ousted him in a 2006 coup. On the other side is the Bangkok establishment led by the military junta, with General Prayuth Chan-ocha, the current prime minister, as their big boss. In 2014, Prayuth ousted Yingluck Shinawatra, Thaksin’s sister, after months of anti-government protests. It was Thailand’s 12^th coup since 1932.

At the heart of the polarization in Thailand is a class and regional divide. Prayuth is supported by urbanized, middle-class citizens and established elites in southern Thailand. Thaksin’s power base lies in the rural northern and eastern parts of the country. Each time when one side has been in charge, the other side has protested raucously. Thailand is bitterly divided between “yellow-shirts” who support the military junta and “red-shirts” who are followers of Thaksin.

The roots of this division go back into the past.

Thailand’s ruling elite sided with the United States in the Cold War. The US Army Center of Military History dutifully records how their loyal ally actively participated in the American misadventure in Vietnam. In return, investment flowed into the country, turning Thailand into a manufacturing economy. Transportation, construction and urbanization boomed. The greatest beneficiary was Bangkok as it exploded in size, wealth and importance. Bangkok continues to be the beating heart of the Thai economy. A recent 2013 presentation by Pathitta Nivatvongs of the Industrial Estates Authority of Thailand shows how Thailand’s industries are largely centered in or near the national capital.

Just as in trade, there are winners and losers in modernization. In Thailand, the winners have been the military, the judiciary, the middle classes of Bangkok, the beneficiaries of the tourist economy of the south and those with old money. The losers have been the toiling peasants in rural areas, the urban poor in sprawling slums, minorities like Malay-Muslims and even refugees like the Hmong. Put simply, the winners are those who created and profited from modern Thailand. The losers are the hewers of wood and drawers of water for the winners.

As David Streckfuss brilliantly observes, Thailand draws its self-identity as the only country in Southeast Asia that was not formally colonized by a European power. To paraphrase the words of Streckfuss, the implications of Thailand’s historical narratives are two-fold: Thai history has been continuous and Thai culture has retained its pristine identity. These seemingly compelling national narratives are disingenuous. Thais managed to avoid formal annexation only by ceding territory, doffing their caps to Europeans and packing off their high-born sons to places like Eton. Siam or Thailand became a de facto colony, an informal part of first the British and then the American Empires.

The bombs that went off this week demonstrate that Thailand is reaching a tipping point. Unless Thailand’s nouveau riche elites and entrenched establishment can act wisely, paradise might well be lost.

Chulalongkorn, the venerated late 19^th century modernizing monarch, learnt from the Europeans and tried to create a Thai nationalism in place of the age-old decentralized mandala model that operated in Southeast Asia. In 1887, he established Thailand’s Royal Military Academy to create an elite officer corps that would both put down the local nobility as well as deter foreign aggressors. Damrong, Chulalongkorn’s intellectual half-brother and second-in-command, created the modern Thai administrative and education systems.

More importantly, through the key 1892 military and political reforms, Damrong set out to “dissolve all dependencies and half dependencies” and “to make all the people Thais, not Lao, not Malay at all.” Vajiravudh, Chulalongkorn’s Sandhurst-trained and Oxford-educated son, went further. He conjured up the myth of a distinct Thai race that had fought both the Chinese and the Europeans to retain its freedom. All subjects in his kingdom had to become Thai whether they liked it or not.

Forging disparate people into a unified nation state was bloody even in England and France. In Africa and Asia this was bloodier still. Thailand is no exception. The Cold War brought a new dimension to Thai nation-building. From the 1950s, Thai traditionalists with the support of their American godfathers sought to keep the communists at bay by restoring the prestige of the monarchy. They set out to create a society based on order, hierarchy and religion. Instead, they created what The Economist has rightly termed “a right royal mess.”

Even as royal worship became the norm, oppression, corruption and poverty continued to be the fate of those at the bottom of social order and in the hinterlands. Unsurprisingly, peasant revolts broke out in the 1970s. Then, students and professional classes sympathized. As Hans U. Luther chronicles in fine detail, the revolts were crushed ruthlessly. The military and its right-wing vigilante groups murdered both student and peasant leaders. A frightening number of killings took place in the Chiang Mai region, Thaksin’s home and core support base, even as Thai nationalism reached its apogee.

Thaksin represents the biggest challenge to the Bangkok political elite. He shares the same name as Taksin the Great, another Thai Chinese leader with overweening ambition. Taksin was a general who snatched victory from the jaws of defeat after the Burmese sacked Ayutthaya in 1767 to become king. He made Bangkok the new capital of a renewed Thai kingdom but did not last long. Taksin was deposed by General Chao Phraya Chakri whose dynasty continues to sit on the throne and commands veneration in much of the land.

In fact, such is the veneration that King Bhumibol Adulyadej is a virtual god in Thailand. The king also conveniently owns a colossal amount of wealth. Unlike Queen Elizabeth II or Emperor Akihito, Bhumibol wields real power behind the scenes and is above any scrutiny.

This opacity about the role of the king is maintained through lèse-majesté laws that can only be termed draconian. They command: “The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated.” Infuriatingly, there is no definition of what constitutes violation. Besides, lèse-majesté charges are rarely made public and their hearings take place behind closed doors. This gives too much power to Thailand’s infamously conservative judiciary. With such ample room for interpretation, judges delight in inflicting severe penalties such as sentencing a 61-year-old grandfather to 20 years in prison.

Thailand is facing great strain because the cult of the king is under threat. This is not because Thais are turning irreverent, but because the 88-year-old king is proving to be palpably human. Bhumibol is spending increasing amounts of time in the hospital. This puts the spotlight on the crown prince whom Jonathan Manthorpe has described as “a wastrel and a vindictive womanizer.” Even the crown prince’s mother has conceded that he is “a bit of a Don Juan.” This prince is also aloof, arrogant and awkward, making him uncomfortably unpopular. Unsurprisingly, Manthorpe is one of many who believe that the crown crisis could tear Thailand apart.

Even as one dynasty declines, Thaksin is creating another one. He comes from one of the richest and most influential families in Chiang Mai. He was an officer in Thailand’s famously repressive and incorrigibly corrupt police force where he rose to be a lieutenant colonel. Thaksin’s contacts in the police and the military helped his early business ventures. He made his fortune as a telecommunications billionaire thanks to a monopoly contract by his friends in government.

Like Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, Thaksin rose to power through unbridled populism. The plutocrat-politician incongruously harnessed anti-elite resentment and became prime minister by promising wealth for the farming heartlands. In power, he fulfilled his end of the bargain by providing microcredit and dollar-a-treatment health care. Unsurprisingly, he continues to be wildly popular among his supporters.

Yet Thaksin’s legacy has a dark side. In 2003, he launched “a war on drugs” that has proved to be every bit as disastrous as the one waged by Americans. Thousands died or disappeared, but the drug trade continued to flourish. Thaksin’s strong-arm methods also poured fire on the flames of the Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand. He abolished key conflict-management structures and ignored military advice to negotiate with the insurgents. Extrajudicial killings became the norm and so did attacks by Islamic rebels.

Thaksin’s conflict of interests as prime minister and business tycoon made many of his supporters uneasy. In a March lunch with the Financial Times, Thaksin worryingly compared himself to Donald Trump and painted an unflattering self-portrait. This arriviste uses facial serum to polish his skin, flaunts a top-of-the-range Patek Philippe and brags about spending 2 million baht (approximately $60,000) on the most expensive wine in the world. In exile, he has spent his time investing in the likes of “biogenic biomedicine” and Manchester City.

Worryingly, Thaksin treats his political movement like a family fiefdom. Yingluck, his sister whom he once famously described as his clone, is now the big boss of his supporters. The Shinawatra clan certainly wins elections and has many supporters, but it has shadily corralled far too much wealth and is another royal dynasty in the making.

Currently, Thaksin is on a charm offensive with Americans, Europeans and even Australians, singing paeans to democracy. At the same time, Prayuth is determined to persist with the status quo even as the king’s health wanes. As the red-shirts battle yellow-shirts, “the Salafization of Islam in Southeast Asia” in general and Malaysia in particular is radicalizing marginalized Malay-Muslims in Thailand’s southernmost provinces.

The bombs that went off this week demonstrate that Thailand is reaching a tipping point. Unless Thailand’s nouveau riche elites and entrenched establishment can act wisely, paradise might well be lost.

*[You can receive “The World This Week” directly in your inbox by subscribing to our mailing list. Simply visit Fair Observer and enter your email address in the space provided. Meanwhile, please find below five of our finest articles for the week.]

© Mfhiatt

Why Latinos Support Donald Trump

No amount of semantic somersaulting can whitewash the racist overtones of Donald Trump’s campaign.

The 55 million Latinos in the United States embody diversity. We come from African, European, Asian and indigenous backgrounds. We represent every shade of skin, eye and hair color. We are Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and Jewish. We run the political spectrum from conservative to liberal.

Our diversity is worth celebrating, which makes this article at once difficult and necessary to write. Difficult because Latinos, like all Americans, have the right to support the politicians who best represent their beliefs. Necessary because personal ideology must arise from thoughtful introspection, not from the unconscious effects of racism. And, as difficult as it may be to accept, a Latino Donald Trump supporter is a textbook example of internalized oppression.

Internalized oppression is a complex process founded in repeated exposure to racism and discrimination. The internalization of these negative experiences can create patterns of “self-invalidation, self-doubt [and] fear… Read more

What Drives Extreme-Right Violence?

© kenlh

In an era where media reporting simplifies everything, we need to remember that threats of terrorism come from both Islamism and the extreme right.

How seriously should we take the risk of violent extremism emanating from the extreme right? The United Kingdom has seen a notable rise in hate crimes since Brexit. Its most serious extreme-right incidents in the past few years include the murder of the parliamentarian Jo Cox in June, attacks by Zack Davies—convicted in 2015 of attempted murder and linked to the group National Action—and Pavlo Lapshyn, an avid reader of The Turner Diaries who was imprisoned for 40 years in 2013 for a murder and planting a series of bombs at mosques.

In America, gunmen such as Dylann Roof and Wade Page can also be cited as particularly evocative, recent examples of men radicalized by extreme-right ideas. The US, too, has seen a rise in anti-Muslim, anti-LGBT and other types of hate… Read more

The View From the Kremlin Window

© Dicus63

Despite popular thinking, the view from Moscow is of a Russia in decline.

The lowest point in the fortunes of Russia since the Mongol invasion had been the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which was forced on the Russians by the Germans on March 3, 1918.

Today, it is worse. Russia is back behind those German borders and has lost much, much more. It is still losing.

By early 1918, the Russian state had collapsed with the fall of the Romanovs. Vladimir Lenin—whom the kaiser had sent back to Russia in a sealed train from his exile in Switzerland to foment the revolution—wanted to stop the war at any cost in order to consolidate the Bolshevik grip on power.

The German terms were draconian and pushed the borders of Russia hundreds of miles eastward. In the west, Russia had to give up the Baltic states, Ukraine, Belarus, parts of Poland and, in a separate agreement, most of the… Read more

Democrats in Philly Fail to Confront Corporate Power

© Bastiaan Slabbers

The Democratic Party must look inward at itself and America to fix broken institutions.

Philadelphia was feisty from attitude in the street to battles in the convention arena. Yet while official events highlighted diversity and the 2016 platform planks long championed by Bernie Sanders, the rhetoric against corporate power—in the ironically titled Wells Fargo Center—was often feeble.

The Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton must convincingly commit to priorities pushed by Sanders and the left on climate, war, agriculture, a living wage and trade. The time is now.

In Philly, much of the movement I saw on these critical issues was outside the Democratic National Convention (DNC), which took place on July 25-28. At a steamy climate rally, Green Nobel Prize winner Berta Cáceres’ daughter, Laura Zuniga Cáceres, stepped into the legacy of her mother with the “It Take Roots to Change the System People’s Caravan,” seeking to bar police and military aid pending investigation into human… Read more

Italy is Europe’s Next Big Challenge

© Kremlin

With Brexit in the air, Italy’s referendum on constitutional reforms has got Europe on the edge of its seat.

Now that the United Kingdom has decided to leave, the next big problem facing the European Union (EU) is a constitutional reform referendum in Italy. In April, the Italian parliament passed a package of constitutional reforms. They were designed to improve the efficiency and stability of the Italian state and reduce the ability of the Italian senate to bring down the government.

Although the package passed, it did not get the required 66% majority in both houses to come into immediate effect. The only way the package can come into effect now is if it is approved by the Italian people in a referendum.

Matteo Renzi, the Italian prime minister, decided that the referendum will take place in autumn 2016, and he has gone further to say that unless the people approve the proposals, he will resign. Former British… Read more

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: RoBeDeRo

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a sponsor.