Generals are in NO POSITION to dictate the future

The junta’s National Reform Steering Assembly has proposed a bill for a politburo-style body that would implement a 20-year national road map. General Prayut says this is necessary because the country lacks a cohesive guiding strategy covering that time period.

In fact this proposed legislation, which envisions a committee of key powerbrokers including the premier and the heads of the National Legislative Assembly and Reform Steering Assembly, looks for all the world like a blueprint for the current regime to retain power even after the next general election.

There is also the question of whether the ostensibly “interim” post-coup regime has the legitimate authority to set strategy that would be binding upon elected governments for the next two decades.

A clear vision for the road ahead and well-considered action plans are of course necessary in any country’s development. But decisions on the future cannot legitimately rest in the hands of the few, not least with members of the military or the wealthy elite. Such decisions must come from the people, as represented by a democratically elected government. 

In Thailand’s parliamentary system, parties campaign for votes by presenting policies that set out their vision for the future. Citizens are put in the position of judging whether these ideas are sound and practical and base their votes on their conclusions.

General Prayut led the May 2014 military coup that toppled an elected government and brought a military-backed regime into power. Whatever the justifi

 cation cited for that action, the Army cannot continue running the country for much longer. In fact the military has no right interfering in a democratic system of governance at all, let alone taking charge, but most Thais have tolerated this intervention in the short term because it has at least restored peace and stability following a decade marked by political violence.

The coup in no way represented the will of the people, but only that of the elite establishment, and this small minority prefers authoritarian rule since it benefits directly. The majority has been left to cower in fear of being punished should it speak out against the disruption to democracy. But that doesn’t mean the majority will allow the current rulers to dictate their future. 

This regime has no better foresight than anyone else does. Neither Prime Minister Prayut nor his generals are in a position to determine what Thailand will or should look like in 20 years. The world is apt to be a very different place from what any of us imagine. They cannot even make a clear decision right now about how fast our trains should run and whether China or Japan is best suited to build the high-speed railway, a project that has drawn no nearer to realisation since the military came to power.

No leader anywhere in the world can claim the right or the ability to set long-term strategy. Not even the authoritarian communist regimes of China, Vietnam and Laos – keen planners all – dare to attempt it. The national congresses of Vietnam and Laos issue only “vision” papers that cautiously peer 15 years ahead, hypothetical adjuncts to their five-year action plans. There is no longer-term strategy because they know the world changes rapidly and plans have to be constantly adjusted accordingly.

Unless General Prayut really does intend to govern well into the future, Thailand needs only the same – long-term vision, a medium-term plan and a five-year action plan, as is already prepared and regularly modified by the National Economic and Social Development Board.