OPINION

As promised election approaches, conspiracy theories abound

By Suthichai Yoon 
The Nation

 

This, of course, could only happen in Thailand.

Premier Prayut Chan-o-cha said the other day that he would exercise his absolute power under Article 44 to “unlock” the rules against political parties carrying out activities in preparation for the upcoming election.

 

The paradox is obvious: He took away the right of political assembly when he staged the coup three years ago. 

 

Now, despite the promise to hand back that right, the prime minister retains the right to keep the right lid on all political activities. But with calls growing for the military to end its rule, the premier has said he will take a step back. He will allow politics to return to normal, but still under his conditions.

 

“The road map remains unchanged,” he declared. 

 

Critics are by now probably too tired to argue that this self-contradictory statement no longer makes sense.

 

But then, this is Thailand. Politicians are too anxious about get back out in the field to bother taking the premier to task once again. 

 

But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a storm brewing on the horizon. The accusation from former Democrat lawmaker Vajara “Jack” Kaewthong was loud and clear: The top brass are colluding with former bureaucrats, business tycoons and certain veteran politicians to form a new military party.

 

The politician went on to name the current economic affairs deputy prime minister, Somkid Jatusripitak, as the possible leader of the new party and Sathit Limpongpan as the party’s secretary general. 

 

As if that wasn’t enough, Vajara suggested that “a famous kamnan from the South” – an obvious reference to yellow shirt leader Suthep Thaugsuban – was the main figure behind the move.

 

All these behind-the-scenes developments, he said, were clearly a concerted attempt to make sure that Prime Minister Prayut continued in power after the upcoming election.

 

In the wake of this controversy emerged proposals to amend the organic laws on political parties, made by Paiboon Nititawan, a social activist who makes no secret of his plan to set up a political party to campaign for Prayut to remain premier after the election. 

 

Then, Somsak Thepsuthin, a former MP from Sukhothai, also demanded a major change to the charter (which has been in force for only two months) – to remove the clause that requires all election candidates to be attached to political parties.

 

Critics immediately branded both these moves as part of a “conspiracy” to sow confusion so that the promised general election due late next year would have to be postponed indefinitely.

 

How has Premier Prayut reacted to all the hoopla around him and his “road map”? With an ambivalent approach – trying to avoid responding directly to questions such as: 

 

1. Are you going to run in the next election?

 

2. Will there be a political party set up on your behalf by “nominees?”

 

3. Will you accept nomination as prime minister after the election whether or not you are an MP?

 

The most specific statement from the premier so far has been that the road map remains unaffected despite the fact that the timeline has been amended to become “more flexible” on several occasions.

 

His insistence that he has no political ambition became less credible when he told local villagers during one of his increasingly frequent visits to rural areas recently: “I am done after the election is held. But if you want me to continue to serve, and if I can be useful, I would be ready.” Those words are paraphrased from the Thai but are an accurate translation of his meaning.

 

When all is said and done, all signs point to the following possible scenarios:

 

1. The major parties: Pheu Thai and the Democrats will push for an election by the end of next year – or early 2019 at the latest.

 

2. Attempts, both public and private, will be made by supporters of General Prayut to delay the ballot-casting for as long as possible. 

 

3. If the delaying tactics fail, political groups and parties in various forms will spring up to contest the election hoping to get sufficient seats in Parliament to join hands with the 250 appointed senators and form the next government, with Prayut heading the new Cabinet.

 

4. If the pro-military groupings can’t win sufficient seats in the polls, efforts will be exerted to get small and medium-sized parties to join hands to form a coalition, also under Prayut.

 

5. On the other side, talks will continue – though with little hope of bearing fruit – to probe the possibility of Pheu Thai and the Democrats forming a grand coalition to ensure that a civilian government materialises. 

 

6. The possibility of Pheu Thai and the Democrats forming a formidable opposition bloc against a military-backed government looms large if the first scenario takes shape. 

 

7. In all possible scenarios, instability and a return to conflict-ridden politics are the dominant features.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30334422

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-12-21

10 minutes ago, webfact said:

Now, despite the promise to hand back that right, the prime minister retains the right to keep the right lid on all political activities. But with calls growing for the military to end its rule, the premier has said he will take a step back. He will allow politics to return to normal, but still under his conditions.

 

“The road map remains unchanged,” he declared. 

 

Critics are by now probably too tired to argue that this self-contradictory statement no longer makes sense.

It never made sense. 

Short and at the same time quite relevant and comprehensive article. Nothing I can add, just nodd.

1 hour ago, webfact said:

7. In all possible scenarios, instability and a return to conflict-ridden politics are the dominant features.

This is probably the most relevant sentence in a good article; the conflict will continue post-election.

 

Why?

 

Simply because the 'Yellow' and 'Green" actors in the conflict are unable to fairly attract a majority of Thai people to their ideas and policies. And since they are unable to fairly attract a majority of Thai people to their ideas and policies, they cheat.

 

I have great sympathy for the Thai people; they should have a representative government that reflects their wishes. 

 

But, they don't.

 

Edited December 20, 20178 yr by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

3 hours ago, candide said:

Short and at the same time quite relevant and comprehensive article. Nothing I can add, just nodd.

And yet you've decided to enrich us with your addition. Which you don't have. 

There are two military dictatorships in the world. There is one Oligarchy in the world, though one can argue there is another Oligarchy governed by big business.....

10 hours ago, webfact said:

6. The possibility of Pheu Thai and the Democrats forming a formidable opposition bloc against a military-backed government looms large if the first scenario takes shape. 

Not going to happen.

Apart from divergent ideologies between the PTP and the Democrats, I'd expect the Democrats would rather have at least some minimal role in a new Prayut government than align with the PTP.

6 hours ago, AlQaholic said:

There are two military dictatorships in the world. There is one Oligarchy in the world, though one can argue there is another Oligarchy governed by big business.....

I believe you are quite correct. According to Wiki, there are presently 2 military dictatorships in the world.

1. Egypt - 2014 to present day.

2. Thailand - 2014 to present day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship#Asia

Oligarchies are less clear. China, North Korea and Venezuela are listed here.

Russia and USA probably are too.

Do you have other examples?

 

On 12/21/2017 at 4:41 PM, ratcatcher said:

I believe you are quite correct. According to Wiki, there are presently 2 military dictatorships in the world.

1. Egypt - 2014 to present day.

2. Thailand - 2014 to present day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship#Asia

Oligarchies are less clear. China, North Korea and Venezuela are listed here.

Russia and USA probably are too.

Do you have other examples?

 

We forgot North Korea, I actually did not count Egypt, but in hindsight, Egypt is probably a dictatorship. On the other hand, NK may be considered an Emperorship, as it has been governed by the same family for so long. As Oligarchies, I was thinking of the US and Russia, didn't consider China nor Venezuela. If one has doubts regarding the US, just look at ancient Rome, its Senate, and its assembly, and compare with the US Senate and Congress, how big business can buy anything it wants there now.

Edited December 26, 20178 yr by AlQaholic