No hope for democracy if backing for Army rule continues

While there’s no denying the hard work put in by Army officers in various flood-affected areas, discussions over the past two weeks has highlighted the now-strengthening belief that the Army is almost a separate political entity. People on social-networking sites such as Twitter have been discussing the role of the Army vis-à-vis the government, with some even saying it is not part of the state.
Perhaps it can be said that apart from the three branches of government – the executive, the legislative and the judiciary – the Army is increasingly affirming itself a major “semi-independent” political player, claming to be the ultimate defender of the throne and the country.
If rogue, overly ambitious generals who see nothing wrong in overthrowing an elected government and a severely weak civilian administration are not enough of a curse, supporters of coups and military rule almost ensure that the Army will continue to maintain undue political influence in the years ahead.
With the Yingluck Shinawatra government’s disappointing performance in handling the flood crisis over the past two months, some may be calling for the Army to intervene. On November 10, a reader wrote to The Nation saying: “Even if the democratic system is temporarily suspended, I doubt there would be that much objection [provided it is only in a short time frame].”
This month, prominent journalist Wassana Nanuam was heard telling listeners on FM101 that the Army was keeping some tanks in the capital “just in case” it needed them for another putsch.
It is attitudes like this that reflects how normal the Army’s “special”, undemocratic role in Thai politics is considered.
However, the Army did blush a bit when The Nation’s sister daily, Krungthep Turakij, reported on November 7 that a “highly placed military source” said the top brass had given Yingluck an “F” for her handling of the flood situation. Statements like this are unthinkable in a democratic nation, even though the Army sent a strongly worded letter of denial later.
Though there is no denying that Yingluck’s performance has been less than sterling so far and that the administration still has corrupt and self-serving politicians, people who think another military intervention is a good idea must look beyond their sense of instant gratification.
Repeated military interventions will only further weaken civilian control of the Army, which is not elected and thus not accountable, and eventually render the system ungovernable because there is still a substantial section of Thai society that will no longer put up with another putsch.
As supporters and cheerleaders of military rule continue entertaining these prospects, Thailand would do well to understand
their myopic and draconian
minds better.