Kyrgyzstan and Thailand generally have very little in common, but this week they have both found themselves gripped by political crises. Kyrgyzstan’s government has been overthrown, but so far the drama in Thailand has been contained. What to make of this?

Kyrgyzstan

The immediate crisis has been triggered by massive energy price increases and a crackdown on opposition leaders, leading to uprisings in two provincial cities before spreading to the capital Bishkek. Crowds of thousands stormed government buildings and the Kyrgyz military seems to have done nothing, suggesting that it was abandoning President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. Bakiyev has now reportedly fled to the south, which is his main political base.

Thailand

By contrast, Thailand’s current political unrest is chronic in nature, with supporters of ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra having staged frequent demonstrations to remove Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva from power. Overall, Thailand has now seen four years of on-and-off protests against one regime or another. On Wednesday, the demonstrators tried to storm parliament, prompting Abhisit to declare a state of emergency. The Thai drama has a regional dynamic in play, since Thaksin’s supporters hail from the country’s rural north and northeast, but it is arguably more about ousting the traditional Bangkok elites. Indeed, the main ‘action’ has been limited to Bangkok, and there has been no violence approaching the scale of Kyrgyzstan, where scores of people have been killed and many more injured. However, Abhisit remains vulnerable, and I therefore do not preclude further trouble in the near future.

Which Crisis Has Bigger Implications?

From an economic point of view, Thailand is a major emerging market and a popular investment and holiday destination. It is a much bigger and diversified economy than Kyrgyzstan, located in a much more dynamic region. (Indeed, when was the last time you went on holiday to Kyrgyzstan or to a London pub that serves Kyrgyz food?) Overall, there are reasons to believe that the political crisis in Thailand has constrained economic growth.

However, from a geopolitical view, the Kyrgyzstan crisis could be of greater significance, for the country is a cauldron of ‘Great Power’ competition – principally between Russia and the US, which both have bases there, but with China increasingly involved in the struggle for Central Asia. Were Kyrgyzstan to go through a period of extended upheaval, Russia could hardly afford to do nothing, and the US might have to find an alternative logistical base for its operations in Afghanistan. Furthermore, a failed state in Kyrgyzstan could become a safe haven for Islamist militants operating in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and China’s Xinjiang province.

Key Observations

• The unrest in Kyrgyzstan and Thailand demonstrates that a small number of people can cause disproportionate disruption. In Kyrgyzstan, protestors numbered in their thousands in a country of 5.5 million. In Thailand, anti-government demonstrations have seldom exceeded 100,000, which is a tiny fraction of Greater Bangkok’s 10 million people, not to mention the country’s 63 million.

• The military is of pivotal importance in several emerging economies. In Kyrgyzstan, the military appears to have stepped aside, allowing the government to fall, whereas in Thailand, the military is backing Abhisit, at least for now. Back in 2006, it was of course the military that ousted Thaksin.

• The capital is key in political crises. Control of the capital is usually what distinguishes a provincial rebellion from full-scale regime change. On the other hand, if the capital cannot exert control nationwide, then civil war often follows.

Tags: Abhisit Vejjajiva, demonstrations, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, Kyrgyzstan, political crisis, protests, regime change, Thailand
Posted in: Asia, General, Geopolitics, Political Risk
RSSFree email updates