In spite of the promise given that Thailand would restore democracy, little has been done by Thailand’s military government to hold elections that would lead to this realization. The democratic space in the country was narrowed down by the 2014 military coup, which curtails the freedoms enjoyed by the people previously (Chachavalpongpun, 2014). According to Chachavalpongpun. This was the nineteenth coup that has taken place in the country after the elimination of the absolute monarchy in the year 1932. Currently, the state is not democratic. The military took over leadership after protestors derailed the election that would ensure democracy and a date for new elections are yet to be set. It would be possible to argue that the polls would assist the country to bridge the existing political divide (2014).
The country is facing steep state controls which occur through the application of restrictions in the freedom of expression. Nyshka Chandran (2017) indicates that the restrictions delay the country’s return to being a democratic state. Even though the prime minister is responsible for managing the affairs of the government, the people still respect the old monarchy. In this case, an individual is likely to be punished severely for defaming or insulting the monarch. Andrew Marshall (2015) indicates that the lese-majeste laws, which are among the strictest laws globally, set the sentence of the defamation or insult of the monarchy to up to 15 years in jail. On the other hand, the government bans the people from associating with the critics of the monarch. Additionally, Thais are not supposed to contact, share content, or follow the government critics.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The democratic space in the country was also narrowed down by King Vajiralongkorn after making changes that would enhance his powers before the new constitution was signed (Phaicharoen, 2017). His influences include the naming of the monarch as the fundamental arbiter during the constitutional upheaval. This action ensures that it is legally possible for the king to lead some of the potential political disputes that might arise. In this regard, the changes make it possible for the monarchy to get involved in political matters. For this reason, a possible argument is that the changes in the country’s constitution enhance absolutism. In this light, the content of the new law makes it difficult to establish a democratic government.
According to Phaicharoen (2017), nothing positive could be derived from the intervention of the military in politics. Optimists are likely to argue that the coups that have been taking place in the country could render good lessons for the politicians and the citizens. However, coups could be seen as setbacks to the nation's democratic environment. Phaicharoen reveals that the fundamental reason that the military considered when staging the 2014 coup was to take care of royal succession. In addition to managing the take-over, the military presumably wanted to eliminate enemies of the nation's elite. In the process of fulfilling the objectives, the changes to the constitution made it possible for the military to influence the political climate. The constitutional changes have an effect on the future of democracy in the nation due to the weakening of civilian governments. The alterations have made it difficult for the people to express their political opinions freely (2017).
About the questioning of whether democracy has a future in the country, it is possible to argue that the current political stalemate leaves the nation hopeless. In this case, Thailand is possibly moving towards authoritarianism rather than support democracy. One of the fundamental characteristics of democratic states is the idea that the press is free and individuals can express themselves freely (Hewison, 2014). However, in Thailand, these freedoms have been curtailed by the military. Additionally, the military does not entertain government critics, especially from the country’s intellectuals (Chachavalpongpun, 2016). Over the years, some of the Thai elites, especially the government critics, have left the country. Their going might be indicative of the idea that it would be difficult for the country to embrace democracy.
The other reason for claiming that Thailand is not likely to become a democracy in future relates to the structure and the content of the new constitution. Thailand’s new constitution not only reduces the number of senators elected into the upper house of the legislature, but also strengthens institutions that are inclusive of the electoral commission, the nation’s anti-corruption commission, and the constitutional court (Head, 2017). The identified institutions are considered as the most powerful in the country. However, they interfere with the politics of the nation and focus less on protecting the law and ensuring the democratic space in the country thrives (Murray, 1998). In some of the democratic countries, such institutions enforce changes to the government that is elected by the people, which is not the case in Thailand. Instead of implementing changes towards supporting democracy, the identified institutions could be linked to pursuing the interests of the nation’s traditional elites.
It would be difficult for an individual to understand why the people would vote for a constitution that is drafted by the military. A likely argument is that the people voted for the constitution to avoid the further postponement of the elections. In this regard, the military might have decided to start over the process of passing the constitution after the initial rejection, which means that the new elections would not be held as soon as the people desire. Conversely, an individual could argue that the military is primarily interested in delay the election to ensure that it remains in power for a more extended period. The military continues to hold this position in spite of the desire by the people for a civilian government. Currently, individuals, especially activist groups, have been engaging in demonstrations in Bangkok, which is an indication that the people are tired with the scheduling and postponing of the elections that would guarantee them civilian leadership (Reuters Staff, 2018).
In addition to military involvement in the government, the other aspect that could be considered when indicating that it will be challenging to restore democracy in Thailand is the absence of a robust opposition (Chachavalpongpun, 2014). Even though the traditional elites are slowly losing their grip on power, an alternative government that would take over is not available. Even though an alternative government can arise, restrictions brought about by the new constitution might make it difficult for the new government to perform its duties effectively. It is seemingly clear that not so many things are taking place as desired by the junta, which means that it would be necessary for the middle class in the country to create new social order. However, this establishment could take years, which means that the country is not likely to experience democracy soon.
References
Chachavalpongpun, P. (2014). The politics of international sanctions: the 2014 coup in Thailand. Journal of International Affairs, 68 (1), 169-185.
Chachavalpongpun, P. (2014). Good coup gone bad: Thailand's political developments since Thaksin's downfall . Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
Chachavalpongpun, P. (2016, March 9). How Thailand is using a draconian law to try to silence critics, including me . Washington Post . Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/thailand-is-using-a-draconian-law-to-try-to-silence-critics-including-me/2016/03/09/da4d9d04-e325-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?utm_term=.65701dee693a
Chandran, N. (2017, May 2). Thailand intensifies state control under the new king . CNBC . Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/30/thailand-intensifies-state-control-under-new-king.html
Gilley, B. (2009). The right to rule: How states win and lose legitimacy . New York: Columbia University Press.
Hewison, K. (2014). Thailand: The Lessons of Protest. Asian Studies: Journal of Critical Perspectives on Asia , 50 (1), 1-15.
Marshall, A. M. G. (2015). A kingdom in crisis: Thailand's struggle for democracy in the twenty-first century . London: Zed Books.
Murray, D. (1998). Discussion: Thailand’s Recent Electoral Reforms. Electoral Studies , 17 (4), 525-536.
Phaicharoen, N. (2017, April 3). King to Sign Thailand’s New Charter on April 6 . BenarNews . Retrieved from https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/thai/constitution-plan-04032017162854.html
Reuters Staff. (2018, February 17). Thai activists plan more protests ahead of a coup anniversary in May . Reuters . Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-politics/thai-activists-plan-more-protests-ahead-of-coup-anniversary-in-may-idUSKCN1G1080
