In 2005 the military junta that runs Burma surprised and puzzled the world by moving the country's administrative center from the old colonial capital of Yangon to the interior, creating a new capital city called Naypyitaw.
The generals did not deign to explain the reasons for their mysterious move, but it is assumed that they felt safer from the threat of popular demonstrations in their new fortress capital than in Yangon. Perhaps they even had an eye to the coming of the 20th anniversary of the 1988 riots against the government that convulsed Yangon and left thousands dead.
The current government in Thailand should take a hint from its neighbor and move the capital out of Bangkok; it would have a better reason for doing so than Burma's rulers. For days now anti-government "red shirt" protesters have occupied the commercial center of Bangkok, shutting down banks and shopping malls - even invading parliament.
It was only a few months ago that the shoe was on the other foot as thousands of yellow-shirted anti-government protesters occupied seats of power, forcing then prime Minister Somchi Wangsawat to run the country, to the extent that it was actually being run, from the VIP lounge of the old Don Muang Airport. They would later occupy the capital's two airports, stranding thousands of tourists and businessmen.
The Thai courts disqualified enough of Somchi's supporters in parliament for the government to lose its majority. That allowed the current Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva of the Democrat Party to form a government. He has handled the current demonstrations without resorting to force, but patience is wearing thin.
Abhisit would do well to decamp, move out of the government house, out of Bangkok entirely, and take as many of the government ministries with him to a more secure place. Perhaps he should set up temporary shop further north in the calmer territory of Chiang Mai or Nakhon Savan.
Unlike Burma, Thailand is a democracy, or at least a democracy of sorts in between its bouts of military rule. Whenever Thais have been given a chance to vote in free elections in the past half of a decade, they have clearly voted for political parties associated with former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted by a military coup in 2006.
The elite and middle classes in Bangkok simply won't accept this result, and so by meeting in or trying to govern from Bangkok, the pro-Thaksin politicians, when in office, are essentially operating from the heart of enemy territory.
True, there was much to dislike about Thaksin's administration. He may have been corrupt, he tolerated a vicious extra-judicial campaign against narcotics traffickers and he probably inflamed rather than ameliorated the insurgency in the south. Yet he is a hero to many Thais as being the only politician to look out for their interests.
Returning to the question of moving the capital: Thailand has had several capitals since a distinct Siamese identity emerged about 1,200 years ago. Bangkok has been the seat of government for only a little more than 200 of those years after the Burmese captured and razed the former capital at Ayutthaya.
The politicians might follow the example of their beloved King Bhumibol, who has reigned from several of his palaces around the country. In recent years, the King has resided more or less permanently in the coastal town of Hua Hin, about 200 km south of Bangkok, coming to the capital only for major ceremonial occasions and, of late, medical treatment. Before that he spent many years living at his palace in Chiang Mai.
There was a time, back in the 1970s, when the government considered moving some of its ministries around the country, including locating some in Hua Hin. In parts of the small city one can still see spaces that were demarked for future government buildings and are only now being replaced by housing developments.
The government might want to move the capital back to the heartland of old Siam, around the ancient cities of Sukhotai or Phitsanulok. Or, it could take a page from some other countries, such as Brazil, that have relocated their capital from the coast to the interior to spur development of impoverished regions. That might mean building an entirely new capital in the northeast region, known as the Isan.
One can imagine that the infrastructure expenditures that would come with the building of an entirely new administrative center somewhere in the heart of the Isan might stimulate the local economy and go a long way to ameliorating the grievances that the local population holds against Bangkok, which could remain the commercial capital.
At the moment, the two forces in Thailand seem to have fought each other to a standstill. Moving the capital, or even threatening to move the capital, might be a game-changer (to use the current Americanism). In any case, the government would have a lot better reason to do it than the generals did in Burma.
