Thai army defends business area from "red shirts"

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63H06E20100420

Remember how last time I mentioned that speculation was the situation was gonna get violent? Well, our friends in Bangkok didn't disappoint it would seem. Currently, red shirts are threatening to descend upon Bangkok's business district, causing the government to reinforce it with armed forces. Speculation that there could be a coup is growing and the stability of Thailand continues to deteriorate. The protestors (who call themselves the Red Shirts) are demanding early elections and are backed by the former prime minster.

In this case, you have a realist power structure clashing up against an objective power structure. The government of Thailand is attempting to operate like an objective power structure. It is making power assessments and deciding how to strategically engage the red shirts, by defending critical areas (such as the financial district) with an overwhelming display of force. They are the states, the primary actors, who in theory should not be influenced by internal affairs of the states (ie protests). However, they are clearly disturbed by the turn of events and are responding to the rebels. Only by claiming the rebels count as a de facto state could you keep this situation within a solely realist worldview. However, it is realist in that the objective power structure that the Thai government adheres to has little regard for human rights and freedoms. It doesn't feel that holding new elections now will be necessary and the regime is currently as military dictatorship. There would seem to be no normative structures that the Thai government feels beholden to.

However, the protestors feel that the government should be accountable to the people. The fact that they would risk doing something about this when the odds (objectively) are stacked significantly against them shows that realist power considerations don't heavily influence their thinking. It would seem that other considerations better inform their decisions. Firstly, their belief in basic human rights and beliefs seems to imply that they hold a liberal philosophy. This is the causative element that explains their decisions.However, the way that they are going about it goes against the basic good element of people that liberals espouse as well. Therefore, we are left to assume that constructivism most likely informs their decision making, that the normative acceptance of violent clashes and revolutions made it possible for this kind of process to take place.