Junta’s priorities the opposite of society’s

The results of a recent poll regarding the long-term government blueprint for Thailand’s development come as no surprise. More than half the respondents had no idea there even was a grand strategy going before the National Legislative Assembly – or that their future was being set in stone for the next 20 years.
In the Super Poll of 1,150 people of various backgrounds from June 5 to 15, 54.9 per cent of respondents asked in return what the national strategy was, while 64 per cent had at least heard about it. More than 90 per cent agreed that the national strategy should be better explained to the public so that citizens can be directly involved.
The military-led government incorporated a strategy proposal in the 2017 Constitution. The junta – the National Council for Peace and Order – was concerned that political conflict might resume and would continue to constrain the country’s growth. But the junta has never been good at communicating needs and objectives to the public, and now it has another problem on its hands.
In an analysis, the survey administrator said the 20-year strategy didn’t seem to appeal to the average citizen, who was even less impressed that it aimed at consolidating state power. There had been public input on the strategy, it was noted, but this was largely ignored, so the resulting document does not reflect public priorities, according to poll respondents.
In fact, the 20-year-plan contains no meaningful vision other than to maintain a significant share of power for the military. What’s needed, of course, is just the opposite – a strategy free of military involvement and a constitution that keeps soldiers in the barracks unless there’s dire, legislated need for action. It would also be desirable to consider a strategy of divestment from military-run businesses and enterprises like banks and broadcast media. This single institution has far too much power even in more democratic times.
Not only is the 20-year plan counterproductive, it also threatens to stymie policy initiatives that might move Thailand forward politically and economically. It forces all governments elected in the next two decades, for example, to accede to the strategy, a document that makes it exceedingly difficult to amend the current Constitution for the betterment of society. This plan is in essence about securing not just the junta’s legacy but also the military’s place in national politics for the foreseeable future.
The poll results indicated that citizens are more concerned about the sluggish economy and its impacts on their livelihoods. They are comparatively less worried about politics and the power struggle between the generals and pro-democracy groups. The priorities are just the reverse for the junta, which has reason to be deeply concerned about its political survival, even as economic progress is being muted.
With economic uncertainty comes fear and anxiety, as the poll results suggested on the question of public attitude towards foreign migrant workers “stealing” Thai jobs. The junta could hardly be expected to give this sensitive issue its proper context by explaining the benefits that accrue from use of foreign labour.
Of course, the junta could also hardly be expected to take the messages of the opinion poll to heart. Amid speculation that the generals could find a way to cling to power without the need for a general election, the priorities and interests of citizens are almost certain to remain ignored.