THE Thai army junta which calls itself the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) that seized power from a democratically elected government on May 2014 now seems intent to permanently convert electoral politics in the country into a farce. In the first week of August, Thais were told to vote in a referendum that in effect sought to curtail their democratic rights. The referendum, held on August 7, was on a new constitution drafted at the behest of the Bangkok elite who are in cahoots with the clique of generals who staged the 2014 coup that ousted the government of prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

The army run government did not allow any meaningful debate on the draft constitution to take place. The media was silenced and many opposition members and others opposing the undemocratic constitution were arrested. Many critics were charged with sedition. Ahead of the referendum, all public discussions on the proposed constitutional changes were banned. A TV station supporting Yingluck's party was taken off the air for a month prior to the referendum campaign. Many former cabinet ministers and parliamentarians were arrested for criticising the army drafted constitution. 

Criticism of the draft constitution was punishable by jail terms up to 10 years. Even mocking the junta leader, Prayuth Chan-Ocha, who is increasingly viewed as a comical figure, is considered a serious crime. Eight Thai citizens were given long prison sentences for criticising the army chief on Facebook. Two eight year old girls were arrested for tearing down posters urging people to vote in the referendum. Since the army took over two years ago, more than 1300 people had been detained for the purpose of “attitude adjustment” and another 1600 tried in military courts. The referendum was happening at a time when the Thai people were already upset with the military junta's handling of the economy. The deputy prime minister, Somkid Jatusripitak, admitted late last year that the “people are dismal” and the country is like “a sick person standing in the cold wind”. Military rule has also led to a rise in general lawlessness and petty crime.

Only 53 percent of the electorate bothered to turn out for the referendum. The propaganda put out by the government had predicted an 80 percent turnout. The Election Commission of Thailand announced that 61 percent of those who voted were in favour of the constitutional amendments. It will be the 20th constitution that Thailand has had since 1932. A constitution approved in 1997 after the Thai people took to the streets to overthrow a particularly brutal military regime, had guaranteed greater democratic and civil rights. But it soon became history after another military coup in 2006. Most of the Thai government since then have been dominated by a military, bureaucratic and business nexus based in Bangkok. The rural poor, constituting the vast majority, have been left out of the equation.

It was the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, Yingluck's elder brother, who channeled the anger of the rural populace with his populist promises and his party had gone on to win successive elections. He was the first among the two siblings to be deposed by the military in 2006. In 2010, scores of his supporters were shot dead when they were protesting against the dismissal of another democratically elected government headed by one of Thaksin's proteges. The former prime minister has been in self imposed exile fearing arrest if he returns. The junta had dropped charges against those responsible for the 2010 massacre.

ARMY TO INCREASE

ITS GRIP ON POWER

The new constitutional changes will effectively prevent any single party from gaining a majority through the ballot box. Also put to vote along with the charter, was an amendment that will allow the armed forces to appoint all 250 members of the upper house – the Senate. The Senate members will be serving seven year terms. Parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held next year. Whatever the outcome of those elections, as per the new constitution, the army will be calling the shots, as the Senate will also participate in the vote to select a new prime minister. The new constitution, according to a report from the International Federation of Human Rights, “will allow the military and its proxies to tighten their grip on power and cement their influence in political affairs”.

Gen Prayuth the junta chief, has said last year that Thailand's problems were caused “by too much democracy”. The former prime minister, Yingluck, who was not allowed to complete her term by the army and who now faces a trial for alleged corruption, expressed her disappointment after the results of the referendum were announced. She said that the country was “stepping backward” by accepting a constitution that was “not truly democratic”. Both the major parties, the Pheu Thai and the Democrat Party, publicly opposed the constitution stating that the document was fundamentally anti-democratic. There was virtually no civilian involvement in the drafting of the new constitution. The new constitution has justified arbitrary detentions on the grounds that freedom of expression can be curtailed to maintain “public order or good morals of the people”.

In the last two years, the army has arrested many Thai citizens and a few foreigners on the grounds of “lese-majeste” – showing disrespect to their King. Any discussion on the future of the monarchy is viewed by the military as threat to “national security”. Long prison sentences have been handed out to activists and scholars on charges of insulting the monarchy. Three people have died in jail while being held on this charge. In fact the politics of royal succession is playing a key role in the recent developments. King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the world's longest reigning monarch is 88 and ailing. He has been hospitalised for over a year. The Crown Prince, Maha Vajiralongkorn, the heir apparent, is also known to have been very close to the former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra.

LURKING

FEAR

There is a lurking fear among the top military brass, the higher levels of the judiciary and the Bangkok elite that if the Crown Prince ascends the throne, he would no longer play according to the unwritten rules that have been in place since the 1930's. The influential Privy Council which advises the King is responsible for selecting the officers for the top military posts. The new King will no doubt pack the Privy Council with his own choices. And unlike the current King, the Crown Prince may not give ready assent to the periodic coups the Thai military indulges in. For that matter, he lacks the stature and the respect his father commands. However, the Royal Palace has a vested interest in the course of Thai politics as it is one of the biggest stakeholders in the Thai economy. 

The Obama administration, which has in a way allowed the Thai military to ride roughshod over the people, has been forced to take notice after the promulgation of the authoritarian new constitution. The US State Department in its report on the human rights situation in Thailand said that military junta had imposed a constitution “severely limiting civil liberties, including restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly and the press”. The report went on to add that the security forces often abused human rights while enjoying “official immunity”. Washington was wary about openly criticising the junta fearing that Bangkok could tilt politically and economically towards Beijing. TheYingluck government had established close economic ties with Beijing.

The American government's main focus is on the military pivot to the East and the military encirclement of China. The American and Thai militaries have had long standing ties dating from the Cold War. Royal Thai air force bases are very important for the Pentagon's “forward positioning” strategy. During the Vietnam war, most of the bombing missions took off from military bases in Thailand. It was the American military that taught their Thai counterparts, counter insurgency and psychological warfare tactics that are being put to use today. Till the early 1970's Washington had helped the Thai military hype up the communist threat in the region. Washington helped the corrupt Thai military to continue with its stranglehold on the country. Gen Sanit Thamarat, the military ruler from 1957-63 was one of the most venal. He is said to have made more than $100 million during his time in office.

A few days after the referendum results were announced, there were a series of bomb attacks targeting seven well known sites, including Phuket and Hua Hin, frequented by foreign tourists. Four Thais were killed and seven foreigners wounded. The army chief, Gen Prayuth was quick to blame the opposition for the terror attacks. He said that “some bad people” opposed to the constitution were responsible for the act. Many Thai and foreign experts on terrorism were however of the opinion that the operations had the signature style of the separatists in the South of the country. The Muslim separatists have been carrying out coordinated bomb attacks for some years in the deep south of the country. The most prominent insurgent group is the Patani-Malay National Revolutionary Front. The low level insurgency has killed more than 7000 people since 2004. Voters in the Muslim dominated areas of the South had rejected the new constitution.

The opposition “Red Shirts” movement has been under close surveillance by the government. If they were involved, it would have made better sense for the incidents to be timed with the referendum process. The Red Shirts have accused the military leadership of deliberately masterminding the latest attacks saying that it was a ploy to continue indefinitely in power.

The bombings were obviously aimed at creating fear and adversely impacting Thailand's lucrative tourism sector. Last year, a terror attack in Bangkok killed more than 20 people. The authorities have initially ruled out terrorism. It later emerged that Uighur terrorists were responsible for the blast in a Hindu temple frequented by foreigners. The political and economic stability the army leadership wants for the country may prove to be elusive as long as there is no popular participation.