The influence of the military on Thai society
Thailand's parliamentary elections will be held on May 14. The reign of General Prayut, who came to power in a coup d'état in 2014, may then come to an end. On social media you can read that the Thai people have a new coup will not tolerate when directed against a democratically elected government. Nevertheless, the chance of a new coup by the military is considerable. In this article we therefore look at the influence of the army and the military on Thai society.
Thai influence Doctors on politics and society is bigger than you might think. Most visible is the direct influence on politics, where military leaders often hold high positions and play an important role in the governance of the country. In addition, there are the more indirect effects on society, such as the control of the media and the restriction of freedom of expression. The army also has its own economic agenda, as it is involved in the Thai economy through various companies and government organizations. The Thai army not only owns companies, but also television stations and is involved in the production of goods.
Historical context
Thailand, formerly known as Siam, has a long history of military intervention in politics. Since 1932, the year when absolute monarchy was abolished, more than a dozen coups have been carried out. Some of them were successful military leaders came to power. The role of the military in Thailand's politics cannot be separated from the pursuit of stability and the protection of the royal family.
Deep-rooted conflicts
As in other countries, Thailand also sees a struggle between conservatives and more progressive and sometimes populist movements. This was especially visible in 2006 during the battle between the Redshirts and the Yellowshirts. That conflict reflects the deeper political, social and economic divisions in the country. Consisting mainly of the urban middle and upper class, the Yellowshirts defend traditional power structures such as the monarchy and the military. The Redshirts, made up mainly of rural and lower social classes, support populist politicians such as former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The conflict came to a head in 2006 with a military coup against Thaksin, and since then the two groups have fought each other through successive governments and political crises. This battle between the Redshirts and Yellowshirts highlights Thailand's struggle to develop a stable democracy amid concentration of power, corruption and the influence of the military on politics.
Last coup in 2014
The 2014 coup in Thailand, led by General Prayut Chan-ocha, took place amid political unrest and street protests between the Redshirts and the Yellowshirts. The conflict arose after a controversial amnesty proposal from the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, sister of deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
The coup led to a period of military rule, during which freedom of expression and political activity were curtailed and the constitution suspended. General elections were finally held in 2019, leading to a coalition government led by Prayut, who retained his position as prime minister. While Thailand has enjoyed some degree of political stability since then, there are still concerns about the military's influence on politics and restrictions on democratic freedoms.
PKittiwongsakul / Shutterstock.com
The Thai military and society
The influence of the military on Thai society is noticeable at various levels. The power of the military in Thailand is deeply rooted and extends far into various aspects of Thai society. Here are some key areas where the military's influence is noticeable:
- Politics: Military personnel have played a prominent role in Thai politics over the years. They have staged several coups d'état and are often involved in the formation and functioning of governments. Although a civilian government is now in power, military influence in politics remains significant, with many former and current military officers in key positions.
- Economy: The Thai military has economic interests in various sectors such as telecommunications, media, infrastructure and manufacturing. They manage public companies and enjoy significant financial benefits and resources. This strengthens their influence and power in the country.
- Media and freedom of expression: The military has influence over the Thai media by owning and operating television stations, newspapers and radio stations. They use these platforms to advance their interests and views and to suppress criticism of the military and government. This has led to restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
- Social Control: The military plays a role in maintaining law and order and social control in Thailand. They can be used to suppress protests and demonstrations, and are often called in to maintain stability and defend the authority of the royal family.
- Conflict in the South: The Thai army is actively involved in the fight against separatist groups in the south of the country. Their presence in these regions impacts the local population and contributes to the ongoing tensions and violence in the area.
Although Thai society strives for democratization and transparency, the power of the military remains at various levels. This makes it a complex and influential factor in the country's current and future political and social landscape.
mr. Witoon Boonchoo / Shutterstock.com
Will there be new coups d'etat?
Whether there will be new coups in the future is difficult to predict, but if you look at history, the expectation of less involvement of the military in politics is not very hopeful. As you have read, the military has spread its tentacles in all sections of Thai society. Power and alternative money flows, which slightly increase the pay of the army leadership, play an important role in this.
The likelihood of future coups d'état depends on several factors, including political stability, economic development and social cohesion. There have been some positive developments in recent years, such as a gradual transition to democratic rule after the 2014 coup. However, Thailand's political landscape remains divided and there are concerns about the level of democracy and freedom in the country.
The likelihood of future coups may diminish if Thailand succeeds in achieving long-term political stability and economic growth and reducing the military's influence on politics. Reforms aimed at strengthening democratic institutions, promoting transparency and ensuring the rule of law can also help reduce the risk of military intervention.
The army as guardian of Thai society
The military sees its own role in Thai politics as a kind of necessary evil. It sees its role primarily as a protector of national security, stability and the Thai monarchy, an institution traditionally closely associated with the military. In times of political unrest or crisis, the military often acts as a stabilizing force, stepping in to restore order. In other words, you can engage in politics, but if things get messy or economic interests are damaged, we will intervene. It is a bit like a father who sees to it that his playing children do not beat each other's brains. That seems noble, but critics point to the history of coups d'état, the restriction of democratic freedoms and the political influence of the military as contributing factors to Thailand's continued political instability and inequality.
And of course the question remains whether the military actually act in the national interest, or mainly in their own interest?
If, as expected, PT and TFP form a coalition after the elections, much will become clear.
A lot has changed within society, I regularly go to the cinema and have noticed that standing up for Him is becoming less and less, especially the youth is sitting comfortably, this was unthinkable a few years ago.
The failure to condemn their military friends from Myanmar for the heinous crimes committed against their own people is also heavily held against them by young people who have their own news channels.
TFP in particular wants to cut the defense budget considerably, but let's see how that will turn out.
I am not a fan of green tentacles tolerating their power and influence in the governance of a country. A defense force that is as small as possible to repel any external aggression is sufficient in my opinion. But in Thailand, defense is mainly there to defend internal security, read: that the plebs will not get it into their heads to gain too much influence on the government and thus protect the interests of the (competing with each other) large, elitist families/ harm clans.
Quote: “There have been some positive developments in recent years, such as a gradual transition to democratic governance”. But what are those steps worth if important organs and functions are secured with military appointees? Take the senate, no longer elected by the people but hand-selected by the coup plotters. Or the Electoral Council, which is supposed to ensure fair elections, the same story. Or the anti-corruption watch-hand (NACC), also there this story. So no one was surprised when Deputy Prime Minister General Prawit was found right by the NACC with his dozens of extremely expensive watches that he had not declared as his possession “because they were borrowed from a deceased friend”. This week, the Supreme Court ordered the NACC to publish all documents relating to that investigation into Prawit within two weeks, but the NACC must first discuss this. It is of course true that not all organs and persons in those functions are on a leash, but the influence and less fresh games of high-ranking military personnel and other hotemets cannot be denied. As a result, democracy in Thailand has suffered serious damage for decades and too little chance to develop.
Soldiers as a father who punishes, yes. A father who prefers not to see the children ask too many questions, experiments on discovery. A father who roars and if the children do not do exactly what father says fast enough and the children who still have a question or rebuttal are mercilessly beaten up, killed or disappear without a trace. Well, a father to be proud of…
And then we are not even talking about the fact that when a government is in power that is not to the liking of other elite families, then conflict is artificially steered, so that unrest arises and the army then "has to" intervene to restore peace and order. That has also happened several times and yet there are people who praise the coup plotters. Indoctrination pays off. I could make a bridge here to Antonio Gramsci on the hegemony of the ruling class (think some textbooks that praised Prayuth for his actions of 2014), but that's enough for now.
Standing up for the “interest of the country” is nothing more than a weak excuse for the interests of a small club (actually clubs) at the top.
The many hats worn by the military is of course an undesirable situation. They belong in a barracks and nothing else. However, they will never give up on their own current position, mainly because it is also about a lot of money. No one will cheer if 2/3 of their income or more has to be lost, and certainly not the 1.000 generals in Thailand. https://www.thailandblog.nl/achtergrond/thailand-het-land-van-duizend-generaals/
You also see this in neighboring countries. In Myanmar, the army is a state within the state with its own schools and hospitals and a heavy hand; Well, we read that every day now. Laos and Vietnam are police states where the voice of the people is kept on the back burner and Cambodia also has a 112 legislation, against the wishes of the king, who declared himself ill and went to China so that Prime Minister Hun Sen could sign that law . Just what a European king once did who was against abortion legislation.
Power, that's what it's all about, and power puts money in the pockets. I don't see this changing any time soon in all the countries mentioned, including Thailand.
Upcoming elections are there to choose a new House of Representatives. That House is important because according to the latest version of the constitution, the Thai prime minister is elected by the National Assembly: a combined session of the newly elected House of Representatives (lower house with 500 seats) and the Senate (upper house with 250 seats).
Please note: through the constituency elections later in May, the Thai population can elect 400 members. The other 100 are placed through a confusing system of party lists. Candidates on those party lists are generally the leaders of the parties.
Then the Senate: it is not elected, but installed, and therefore impartial in Thai logic. The 250 senate members have therefore been appointed by the Royal Thai Military.
Those 100 plus 250 are much more powerful: they will drink a glass after the elections, take a pee and make sure that it stays as it was.
I've read all the comments but I'm still not there.
What if the Thai soldiers retreat to their barracks and leave everything to those who are "democratically elected"?
Will this give a “boost” to the economy? Will the average Thai benefit from it? Will corruption disappear? Will the rich share their fortunes?
It is obvious that the military have a lot of power and hold the good "posts", but keeping a country "stable" is also important and as far as I know Thailand cannot be compared to North Korea, Myanmar, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Somalia ... and you name it on.
By the way, a study shows that +/- 70 percent of 180 countries surveyed have a “serious problem” in terms of corruption!, and they are not all “military regimes”.
Many of those European democrats often overlook that, democracy is not something you learn at school for two hours a week and with a cross on a ballot paper.
If stability is lost due to coercion [preferably as friendly as possible], all those 'democratic citizens' will drive after it in fifth gear to also sniff at that power and explain 'democracy' to you according to their insight.
Give it time say another generation and then it has a chance to succeed in this region.
Neighboring countries will also have to change.
A mature democracy can only arise if it is given the chance to develop, you cannot learn to cycle if someone else holds your bicycle permanently. It will take time for a well-developed climate of democracy, checks and balances, much smaller conflicts of interest, and so on, to develop in the various levels of government, organizations, etc. And the rich, incidentally acquiring intimately with high military and other high figures, they certainly do not spontaneously share their property or influence (power). This requires strong pressure from below by the people. But every few years, ever since 1932, hard blows are being thrown to discourage that people from the 'silly' idea of democracy and a fairer distribution of power, influence and wealth. Not a healthy state if you ask me. After almost 100 years, wouldn't it be time to remove those enforced training wheels from bicycles?
I think you are forgetting an important thing: every Thai, from rich to poor, from high to low, has to adopt a different attitude when it comes to (political) majorities and minorities.
But people think exclusively in terms of power, and preferably absolute power.
And we know that attitudes change slowly.
This is nonsense reasoning, dear Philippe. No one on Thailand blog compares Thailand to “North Korea, Myanmar, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Somalia… you name it.” Not even regimes of the immediate neighbors on the eastern border. But if you pretend to be a democratic constitutional state, and Thailand does,
with regular democratic and transparent elections,
with the participation of various political parties expected to play a coalition or an opposition role after the elections,
with election campaigns lasting several weeks across the country,
with many calls to the population to exercise their right to vote,
with a constitution, a parliament, a senate,
with high councils of state such as a council of state and a high council, and
with a separation of powers (trias politica),
if you as a country pretend to have filled in all of the above in your constitution, then it is not appropriate if elections have been held and a parliament and government have been appointed, then to have the army dissolve parliament and government and let it determine how the country will continue controlled.
And that is what happened in 2014 and what Thailand is dealing with to this day. That is what has been happening so many times since 1932. If you want a democratic constitutional state, you recognize and respect the results of elections, the authority and the functioning of the state institutions and together you ensure that that democracy also takes shape. Each institution has its own role and responsibility and that of the military is subordinate to government and parliament. And not the other way around like in Thailand.
Nevertheless, corruption may take place, false promises may be made, the country may be in turmoil. No people are quiet, people are never satisfied, there is always something. But depriving the Thai people of an emancipation development such as that which took place in Western Europe and East Asia after 1945 does not show much historical awareness. In Western Europe, for example, democratization only got under way after 1968. Many readers of Thailandblog were present at the time, as a student and as a participant. It is a pity that they are now so little heard from and like the current "stability" because it guarantees that they have their "sheep on dry land". Also remember that there are few countries in the world where a constitution is rewritten every few years. It's time for Thailand to take its own constitution seriously.
1. It is impossible to speak of democracy in Thailand as the first pillar is not met.
the first pillar of democracy is: Freedom of expression and Thailand certainly does not meet that.
2. Words from Charles Maurice de Talleyrand :
“A monarchy must be ruled with democrats, a republic with aristocrats.”
3. The 3 stages in politics: promise, don't deliver, explain that more important matters are at stake.
4. Personally don't think much will change we drink a glass we make a puddle and everything stays as it was
The military also influences the banking system. If they become (joint) winners after the elections through their “support” of the elections, they will be rewarded by allowing military purchases. To reduce spending, the banking system will manipulate the position of the THB-USD.
Here, too, the army is portrayed as a socially stabilizing (f)actor. That is only partly true. For the ordinary working Thai, the impact of soldiers in all kinds of administrative levels outside the armed forces is often very destabilizing.
An example:
In the northern Thai village where we live we knew a forester. A man who professionally sawed trees and planked and processed them into beams. Until 2015, the man had a well-run business with 5 employees.
Some hardwoods, such as teak (mai sak) and padauk (mai padoe), are protected by Thai law. Cutting these trees requires a permit.
Until 2014, the man's business was profitable. The forester and his staff made a good living. Those hardwoods are sought after and pricey on the market.
Until 2015, the forester paid 4000 THB in cash without a receipt to the official who granted the felling permits. TiT
But that small northern Thai village happens to be in an area where the Red Shirt Movement has traditionally been strongly established and where it set up all kinds of socially useful activities. This manifested itself in the voting behaviour.
The soldiers thought that was impossible. From 2015, a soldier was placed next to (actually above) just about every civil servant with any social impact, even in our small village.
In 2015, the forester stopped his professional activities. He could not continue working at a loss.
The soldier who sat next to (above) the licensing officer had to hand over 6000 thb every month on top of the 4000 thb for the civil authority.
The forester now tries to earn a living as a construction contractor, mainly of roads and (irrigation) canals. For this, the "overhead" cost to civil servants is lower and the military does not yet demand a monthly brown envelope.
These kinds of abuses ensure that many people in the village have become resentful towards the military. This manifests itself more and more openly in grumbling, especially when the red or black ball is drawn to select conscripted village boys.
Those years of Friday evening speeches on television by the Prime Minister General with the baseline “Bringing happiness to the people” have apparently created an expectation pattern that does not fully correspond to reality.
This article and the comments completely ignore the influence that the US is trying to exert on internal politics in Thailand (and not only in Thailand, also in MyanMar, Vietnam, Laos…) in an attempt to separate SE-Asia weeks of China's influence. It is of course a thorn in their side that the Thai-Sino cooperation is steadily expanding. They support the TP and FTP with a lot of money and try to expand their influence.
If you want to know more about this, watch this 15 min video by Brian Berletic (former US soldier and now living in Bangkok).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gKyYHWhmd4
The Americans have been good friends with the Thai military for many years. That started from the cold war (domino theory), until today with, among other things, the annual Cobra training sessions in which the two armies hold large exercises together. It should also be clear that America has asserted its hegemony since the end of WW2 because of political and especially financial interests. Until now, Thai and American soldiers and other security services know each other well (although it is sometimes grumbling in every marriage). Thailand is of course not crazy and also sees China's position growing further, so they must also keep it a friend.
Someone like Brian, yellow shirt and supporter of the coup of 2014, so not exactly democratic. The fact that America can kill countries that are not well disposed towards it (coups and other forms of subversion and unrest) is also a given, but Thailand and the US still get along very well. But Brian scores with his talk with the Thai ultra-nationalists.
That friendship comes more and more from one side and not from two sides. Thailand was a good ally of Thailand during the Vietnam War by providing the Americans with all kinds of facilities, including access to the airport in Udon Thani. Not a bad word from the Americans about the less democratic content of Thailand because that didn't matter as long as the regime helped the US.
Their more recent veiled criticisms of the Constitution, the election and the coup have not really endeared the US. Perhaps not so much because of the content of the criticism, but because many politicians (and certainly not only the conservative or progressive) consider this criticism an interference in Thai affairs.
America, like any country, thinks of its own interests first, but all things considered, America as a “friend” is much preferable to China just for the simple fact that China is a dictatorship. The American people can freely choose their leaders every 4 years and the Chinese groan under state propaganda, have no free press and no free entrepreneurs, everything is ultimately determined by a dictator for life.
As for criticizing and taking it as interfering in other people's affairs, provided it is done in a slightly correct way, friends may, perhaps even should, be able to address each other.
Certainly Chris, the global balance of power changes. The influence of the Americans is decreasing worldwide while that of China is rising. It is evident that the Americans want to curb this development for as long as possible in order to protect their own hegemony. See the many military bases and military actions of the Americans near China (the other way around, America would go completely crazy if China did that, see how America placed weapons systems near the USSR, but Russian weapons in Cuba were unacceptable). It makes sense that Thailand is focusing more on China, but American ties still have a function. I see it as a balancing act, focusing entirely on China is not (yet) an option. Thailand will not want to be completely dependent on the Chinese, which could harm its own interests. For the time being, it is therefore eating from both sides, where the tires will sometimes be a bit warmer and less warm. Until China really is the number one world power and the Americans are practically written off. Then we are still a few years further.
I have been portrayed here on the blog as a fan of the Thai military just because I analyze the situation and try to find out the truth. So for the newbies: I used to vote PSP (the Pacifist Socialist Party) a lot in the past, I'm against any form of violence, I'm against any military anywhere in the world, but I'm a big believer in personal resilience.
Now Thailand in 2023. THE Thai army does not exist, it never existed and the political division within the army (read: the former army top) has never been as great as it is now. The breakup of the Prayut, Prawit and Anupong trinity should shake people up. That is not nothing and it did not just happen. The current army leadership is shrouded in silence. As in every other monarchy in the world, the army supports the king and swears allegiance to him, also in the Netherlands. The Thai king is commander-in-chief of the army, Willem-Alexander is not. In exchange for this loyalty (which is reflected, among other things, in the application of Article 112), the Thai military leadership expects almost unconditional support in return: material and immaterial. But the top has been slightly to severely disappointed in this for decades. The commander-in-chief does not always listen, pardons art112 convicts and – behind closed doors – has his own opinion about the application of democratic principles.
Successful coups cannot take place if the Supreme Commander has not been consulted beforehand. That's an open secret. For the time being, such a situation seems out of the question, also because the current commander has said in one of his few speeches that he is not in favor of this at all. Immediately endorsed by Prayut who knows which way the wind blows.
Prayut was apparently fed up with this situation and chose his own political path, which in all probability will be his political suicide. He can leave the political battlefield with his head held high and say he is a great Democrat by acknowledging his defeat. The commander-in-chief's loyalists are gathering around Prawit, who has been striking a very nice and conciliatory tone towards other political parties, even the opposition, in recent weeks. Who would have whispered that to him?
Dear Chris, 'the Thai army does not exist' is semantics and it is of no use to the Thai people. The Thai army costs the Thai state a lot of money, has its influence everywhere, has a lot of decision-making power, and the fact that there are controversies at the top of the military is extremely unfortunate and shows that Thailand, even in the current 21st century, remains stuck in feudal thinking. The mere fact that the current constitution was rewritten in favor of the military in 2016 and approved through a controlled referendum speaks volumes. For those who want to know more about the existence of the Thai army:
https://www.thailandblog.nl/achtergrond/thailand-het-land-van-duizend-generaals/
https://www.bnnvara.nl/joop/artikelen/militairen-thailand-verankeren-politieke-macht-grondwet
https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/arbeiders-en-boeren-tegenover-conservatieve-aanhang-van-het-leger-bij-komende-verkiezingen-in-thailand~b980dad7/
What the Thai army has to do with personal resilience is a question to me, because that is precisely what prevents the Thai people from doing so, as witnessed by the many coups that the army deemed necessary.
Dear Soi,
The Thai people have a lot to know that THE army does not have an opinion but different ones. I know a number of generals who think nuanced about the political developments in this country. Not every soldier is an arch-conservative. Not every citizen is progressive. Good thing, too. In addition, those who are apparently the figurehead of “THE” army no longer work there at all, but have retired. This also applies to a number of senators with a military background. In the Netherlands such people are called generals-out-of-service.
In the 60s and 70s, a large number of MPs came from education. Nobody said then that the Netherlands was ruled by education.
Conservative or feudal thinking is not limited to the military.
The military is also not a legal entity, but that is the Department of Defense, and the companies that the Department owns..
The army costs money but also generates income (their companies own and operate hotels, restaurants, golf clubs, a boxing stadium) and provides employment for thousands of military personnel. Whether they are all necessary to defend the country is another question. The army owes the positive part of its image to the good primary and secondary working conditions and these do not only apply to the generals. The army could provide even more income if all barracks that are still located in the inner cities (and not just in Bangkok) were moved to the far outskirts. Those lands would, I think, yield billions of Baht and space for housing and greenery. Why don't I hear any political party about that?
Chris, there are several political parties that have indicated that they want the army out of the city of Bangkok, after which the best large pieces of land can be used for other & broader purposes.
The military sees itself as an independent force/authority in this country, almost untouchable by the government. There is indeed a Ministry of Defense, but that Ministry is more ceremonial than a policy body.
A tragedy of this country is that the military is really active in all legal and illegal activities. Because of their “untouchability” they can easily enter the criminal world of human trafficking, arms trafficking, drugs, casinos and money laundering, often with “permission from the police who follow the same training at officer level (where the networks are created or strengthened).
Hi Peterz,
In their national election programs (???) because of course it's not just about Bangkok. Have a look at Udon Thani.
The Department of Defense is de jure responsible for the military, not the military. A new minister can change a lot if he/she really wants to because he/she is the boss. A good start would be: downsizing and modernizing the armed forces, connecting additional functions during service, transparency of additional functions next to service, abolishing conscription and moving barracks from the cities to the countryside. Sat.
In the context of every advantage has its disadvantage, many people in Korat would become very sad.
Although, as a non-immigrant or foreigner, I look doubtfully at barracks, golf courses, walking parks made available by the army here in Korat.
The men [and ladies] take good care of each other and giving the common citizen a little bit of money doesn't seem to hurt.
Dear Soi, for the enthusiast who wants to read a little more, there are also the necessary books that are wholly or partly about the military. Looking at my bookcase, I'll name a few (from newest to oldest):
– A soldier king: monarchy and military. By Supalak Ganjanakhundee
– Infiltrating society: the Thai military's internal security affairs. By Puangthong Pawakapan
– Thai military power, by Gregory Raymond (book review here on TB)
– The politics of despotic paternalism. By Thak Chaloemtiarana
– A special relationship: the United States and military government
in Thailand, 1947–1958. By Daniel Fineman
– Various other books such as biographies about general X or Y. (see also the series by Lung Jan here on TB). In the various history books about Thailand, the armed forces also regularly pass by. Hours of reading fun for bookworms.
But there is also a lot to be found online, including Prachatai. One is less well written than the other, but in any case it makes it clear that there are a very diverse number of players (with different views and interests) and (changing!) relationships/networks. Not that all wisdom can be obtained from reading, but it does provide a basis for understanding and explaining events in the past and present.