Emergency powers necessary for Thailand's high-wire democracy

Thailand is not the only country to have dealt with crisis panels and states of emergency. In Britain the Civil Contingencies Act of 2004 allows the monarch to override parliamentary laws such as the citizen’s right to trial. In the United States, the response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, included a suspension of the law limiting the size of the military and duration of military service. That emergency regulation is still in force today.

I am not suggesting that British or American strategies are relevant to Thailand today. But I suspect that, if either country had encountered events of the magnitude Thailand faced in early 2014, they would have introduced emergency powers. The dire situation in Thailand included nightly bombings and politically inspired murders, deliberate police inaction over huge weapons caches concealed for possible insurrection, and wholesale abuse of parliamentary procedures, to name but three issues.

Those who believe pre-coup Thailand was a democracy that should be restored tomorrow morning through an election are likely advocating a return to that chaos. Like others, I am not sure the junta’s proposals and new constitution will bring about the much-desired national conciliation. But General Prayut Chan-o-cha deserves credit for trying. The alternative is a return to the fragmented “democracy” of yesteryear, followed inevitably by another coup.

Barry Kenyon