What’s worse for democracy – the military or money? 

We could ask of the current Thai junta, did it emerge from thin air and the suddenly power-greedy military? Or was it in fact a reaction to undemocratic, dishonest, self-enriching and abusive actions by previous politicians in power?
Thailand probably experienced a “natural” reaction in May 2014, got what it deserves and now has to deal with the reality. That reality is Prayut and the military, exercising their power to establish a sustainable democracy that is not open to abuse – or, if you believe some observers, planning to stay in power for as long as possible.
Simply said there are three powers controlling Thailand’s fate. Right now the military is in charge. But as soon as the military lifts the ban on politics, the parties will be in full democratic play. But so will the third power – people with money. Commentators and media seem unconcerned about the influence of “big money” on the democratic process. But isn’t money influence as bad as military influence in a democracy? 
The only power left to counter the undemocratic money influence on Thai politics is the military, by keeping full control in the countdown to election day. So what we are seeing, reading and hearing about now is the power struggle between the military and big money. The latter is probably so strong it would overrun military influence if the junta lifted the ban on political activity now, so the military will keep control until the election.
So then, the military is the lesser evil, not democratic but with a will to establish democracy. Or should people just welcome back big money ahead of the election, not viewing it as a fox in the henhouse but as a natural part of democracy – as shown in the “democratic” United States?
A Johnsen
Hua Hin