Abstract
In discussing the role of the military in the democratisation process in Thailand, the author poses the questions: what role does the military have to play in the process of democratisation, and under what circumstances will its political role change?
In answer to these questions, the author addresses the following areas: coups and the military’s struggle for state power; coups and democratisation; the military’s mission and it’s political involvement; the Communist insurgency and military-initiated liberalisation; the military, society and democratisation; and the May 1992 uprising and the prospect of democratic development.
In conclusion, the author states that democratic reforms should be carried out gradually and that the military should learn how to tolerate the democratic processes, and play the game by the rules.
A stable democracy requires public commitment to democratic norms and procedures, a strong and institutionalised party system, and active pressure groups. Such conditions have yet to be fully developed in Thailand. Since the ending of absolute monarchical rule in 1932, the fragility of representative institutions and public political apathy have allowed the military to take control of state power. Over the past sixty years the struggle for power between men in uniform and civilian politicians has been reflected in a series of coups and continued military control of the state. The armed forces have been concerned not only with national defence but with other dimensions of national security such as political stability. Through effective control over state apparatuses, particularly the police force and civil service, the military has dominated political decision-making; the course of political change has not been set by civilian politicians or political parties. The party system is far from institutionalised and its lack of mass support is clearly evident. As a result, the separation between democracy and military rule remains fragile in Thailand.
In the last ten years, however, Thailand has undergone dramatic changes which perhaps have provided the preconditions for democracy: pluralism, open politics, and rapid industrialisation. These developments have not put an end to authoritarian rule. A coup occurred in February 1991. The military subsequently appoint-ed a civilian government, but pro-democracy forces have become very active in campaigning against the pro-military constitution and General Suchinda Kraprayoon’s assumption of the premiership. Thus, although the military continues to play an important role in politics, it faces increasing competition for state power from civilian politicians. It is being forced to tolerate the increasing strength of representative institutions and extra-bureaucratic forces and to adjust its role accordingly. A ‘guardian’ role continues to be advocated by the military, but that role is unlikely to enjoy as much public support as in the past. In discussing the role of the military in the democratisation process in Thailand, the interesting questions therefore are: what role does the military have to play in the process of democratisation, and under what circumstances will its political role change?