When politicians shelter behind uniforms

There have been times when every military reshuffle involving a colonel was closely watched and scrutinised inside and out, and there have been times when nobody really cared which Army general got what in a transfer season. Thai politics has seen the influences of the men in uniforms ebb and flow. Misguided ambition is partly to blame, but it takes two to tango.

The military's political power is wielded through tanks and machine-guns, but it has to be aided by the weakening of conventional administrative power. Words like “opportunism” and “intervention” suggest things need to be wrong – or be perceived to be wrong – for high-ranking military officers to step in politically. Corruption is often cited, most often along with questionable loyalty to the monarchy.

Shortly after the 1992 “Black May” uprising, the military's political standing hit its lowest point. The status became so low that some newspapers stopped publishing details of the annual Armed Forces reshuffles. The public did not really bother to know which man got to command which battalion or company, because their day-to-day lives were unlikely to be affected.

Then, slowly but surely, an old tradition returned. Politicians went back to assuming that political power – “democratic power” in the case of Thailand – had to be backed up by guns and tanks. Instead of strengthening the very foundations of democracy – checks and balances, transparency, honesty and accountability – politicians became more concerned with whether the men they could control could rise to important military posts. Instead of using integrity to shield democracy, they ironically presumed that the men in uniform could help them maintain their democratic power.

Such presumption led everyone down a slippery slope. Those holding political power resorted to nepotism and interfered with military reshuffles. Their enemies tried to do the same. High-ranking military personnel were made to feel politically important. And, all of a sudden, all major western embassies want to find out who controls an artillery force in the Northeast because that might dictate Thailand's political future.

All eyes will be on military reshuffles this year for obvious reasons. Now everyone wants to know how interim Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha will consolidate his military power and whether there is a chance of a “counter-coup”. The Armed Forces have been fully in the political spotlight for a while, but to blame that solely on them is refusing to acknowledge the root cause of the problem.

There is an argument that it doesn’t matter how “honest” a government is because, if the military really wants to seize power, it will find a way. That argument is questionable at best. This is not a chicken-and-egg situation. The buck stops with the mainstream politicians. If they are honest and rule with integrity, all else should fall into place.

Political reform, therefore, should focus on giving politicians the right immunity. When it comes to corruption, parliamentary dominance or “solid backing” of the Armed Forces must be taken out of the equation. Politicians must not be allowed to think that as long as having the military on their side and unbeatable numbers in Parliament, they can do anything they like. For their own good, the politicians must be made to realise that the stronger they think they are – having relatives or friends in key military positions and all – the weaker they become democratically.

Democracy should be more about serving public interests than politicians barricading themselves against scrutiny or punishment. Only dictators do that. Democracy should be about allowing outsiders no pretext whatsoever to step in. Healthy democracy learns to protect itself, not blame others.