The September 19, 2006 coup by the military junta seems to have resulted in a fair amount of chaos thus far, from my perspective. However, I'm interested in yours!

The coup has done nothing for the country nor the people. The same divisions in Thai society exist now as under Thaksin. The only thing it did do was to forstall Thaksin's alledged plan to incite violence and then declare a state of emergency giving himself absolute power. Whether you believe this allegation or not is a moot point right now the fact is the country is as divided now as before.

Basically the TRT bought it's way into power with a combination of cash in hand payments and populist policies aimed at Thailand's majority agricultural base. Once in power it could use government money to further it's ambitions and grip on power whilst lining the pockets of the party members. The government money of course came from taxes in the main paid by the middle class generally centered around Bangkok. These people objected to their tax money going to fund the government's popularity via free handouts and low cost loans to farmers and the like.

This rural support for the TRT remained throughout the coup and the years plus of military installed government. Therefore it was no surprise when the PPP, openly admitted to be the TRT in new clothes under the same leader (via proxy), won the election. So we are right back were we started and now the divisions are getting worse with the PAD, despite the D word in their title, advocating an all but complete abandonment of democracy as we know it for a largely installed autocratic style of government.

God knows I'm no Thaksin supporter, didn't trust him when I first saw him, but at least during his early years in power Thailand was making some progress in the right direction (ignoring his war on drugs).

Anyhow those are my thoughts open to criticism and correction as the forum sees fit.

The coup defused an increasingly-violent situation, and enabled Thailand to move on, but the basic divisions remain, and the return on-schedule to democracy has thus far failed to address these problems.

It could all have been much much worse.

Are you actually thinking that a Military Junta is EVER good?

The September 19, 2006 coup by the military junta seems to have resulted in a fair amount of chaos thus far, from my perspective. However, I'm interested in yours!

[/quote

The coup had made certain military personnel rich...

Are you actually thinking that a Military Junta is EVER good?

Some people see things as black or white. I see mostly shades of grey.

I can certainly conceive of situations with an outcome more frightening than a nice peaceful coup, which returns power to the people as promised, some 15 months later.

Are you actually thinking that a Military Junta is NEVER better than the alternative ?

We are talking two things here. Firstly a military coup which leads to; secondly a military junta. Focussing on the topic of the coup two years ago it could be argued that a bloodless coup was better than the, alleged, violent confrontation that was planned. From the coup there emerged a military installed interim government that promised a return to democracy with a set timeframe which it pretty well stuck to.

In that respect THE coup this thread refers to can be considered a good thing (unless you are a Thaksin supporter) as it prevented bloodshed.

However a coup must always be considered a bad thing as it usurps the voice of the people.

But a junta, in terms of a long term military government, is completely at odds with the popular conception of democracy. In a truly democratic system the military swears on oath to serve and support the duly elected government. However in Thailand, and probably all constitutional monarchies, the military swear allegiance to the monarch and the country leaving the options open with respect to the government. The military, at best, tolerate the government provided it is kept well fed.

Had the military installed a fully fledged junta, a la Myanmar, it would be considered a bad thing by democratically thinking people.

However, would Thailand be better off if it were run by some kind of benevolent dictatorship?

I guess the question should be does Thailand want to be a democracy? I think for the majority they don't care as lons as they get food on the table.

The coup was good and prevented a lot bigger troubles.

The junta, did nothing wrong....actually it didn't do anything.....

To have the same TRT 2nd edition criminals in power is due to the failure of the junta to clean them out.

The coup helped ..

• The generals get richer
  
• Thailand to move backwards
  
• Thailand's neighbors gain tourism market share
  

Thailand would been better off with Thaskin in charge - Coup just made things worse at the end of the day.

Thailand would been better off with Thaskin in charge .............

I imagine that would depend on your definition of "better off"

Actually the only success of the junta was to prove a military coup is not a solution to a political crisis.

Lesson learned ... I hope