Dictating the election outcome

The junta’s use of legal means to ban politicians and activists from expressing opinions on election irregularities and the formation of a new government violates not only basic civil rights. It also threatens the credibility of the entire governmental system.
The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) has filed police complaints against rising political star Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, leader of Future Forward Party, over an incident that allegedly happened four years ago.
On Saturday, police duly charged Thanathorn with inciting unrest, with helping a student activist flee arrest, and with taking part in an unlawful gathering that threatened public order. He denied all the charges, which came a week after his party’s surprisingly strong showing in the election, winning more than 80 seats in the House of Representatives.
The accusations stem from an incident in 2015, when anti-junta student activists resisted authorities’ attempts to detain them. Thanathorn is accused of providing a vehicle for the students to flee. The billionaire-cum-politician told diplomat-observers at the Bangkok police station on Saturday that the charges were politically motivated, as they were pressed only after the junta witnessed his party’s strong showing in the March 24 election. The junta has good reason to be worried: Future Forward has pledged to reform the military and restore democratic rights and norms suppressed since the 2014 coup.
The move to try Thanathorn in a military rather than a civilian court has proved especially controversial, given the country is meant to be transitioning to civilian rule.
It adds weight to perceptions that last month’s general election was merely a tool used by the junta to legitimise an extended stay in power. That perception gained momentum after a raft of irregularities and discrepancies in the counting of votes were reported. The Election Commission (EC) has been reluctant to offer explanations despite the rising concern over its conduct, preferring instead to gag criticism with legal threats.
In the crosshairs are activist Nuttaa Mahuttana and political critic Sirote Klampaiboon, whom the EC has sued for libel. Sirote says both have been summoned to report to police tomorrow. Meanwhile seven more people were charged last week for sharing an online petition calling for impeachment of the election commissioners. That hasn’t halted the flow of visitors and signatures at change.org/EC, nor other attempts to oust EC members.  
Public distrust stems not just from recorded election irregularities but also the method used to calculate the number of party-list MPs. The EC stands accused of choosing a formula that favours pro-junta parties. The commission rejected the allegation, saying it had no intention of serving the interests of any particular group. It also threatened more legal action against anyone who caused misunderstandings that discredited the body. 
Rather than taking legal action to stifle criticism, the EC should do its job to correct the flaws in the poll, whether real or perceived. Using the law to silence dissent is not the solution, but rather part of the problem. It risks further eroding public faith in both the commission and the entire election. 
By resorting to legal threats against politicians and activists, the junta is exposing to the world its lack of faith in democracy. With each such act of suppression, the general election appears more and more like a cynical exercise to legitimise and extend its stay in power. Its proxy party fell short of the majority it sought, and now all means are being   employed to stop the opposition.
However, using force and legal trickery will never bring sustained stability and peace to the country. Instead, it creates rising frustration and grievances among the population – a situation ripe for social unrest. The time bomb of social tension is already ticking. Better to defuse it now.