Cracks appear in the regime
Government’s popularity nosedives, write Aekarach Sattaburuth and Wassana Nanuam
Signs of decline in the military regime have clearly appeared after it has been in control of the country for almost four years.
The key reasons attributed to the decline of its popularity include inaction over scandals, particularly the luxury watches saga involving Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon, a lack of progress in national reforms, and the regime’s perceived attempts to maintain its power after a general election as well as repeated failures to keep promises on the election date, political observers say.
The National Council for Peace and Order came into power in May 2014, to the applause of the anti-Yingluck Shinawatra camp and many other people who wanted peace and order to return after several years of political chaos.
The regime made many promises to justify its coup including national reforms, good governance, a staunch fight against corruption and a roadmap to democracy.
But after three years and eight months, many of its friends have turned to foes.
A crucial issue concerns the 25 luxury watches scandal of Gen Prawit. Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has fully protected him. This is in contrast to the plight of several other state officials who were suspended from duty when they encountered scandal, with the prime minister exercising his special power under Section 44 to take action against them.
The possible delay of the election roadmap has also triggered the dissatisfaction of pro-democracy camps after Gen Prayut failed several times to keep his promises on the time frame.
According to political sources, the remaining months will be the toughest for the military government which had its first warning that its popularity was suffering from Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda.
Gen Prem earlier warned the prime minister had lost much of his support base.
Gen Prem’s warning is widely seen by political observers as the beginning of the decline for the regime. It is believed that if the government fails to shore up its popularity, the military will be the only support base it has.
The absence of former People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) leader Suthep Thaugsuban’s support for Gen Prayut in recent weeks is conspicuous, according to the sources. Mr Suthep had publicly shown his support to the government until lately.
Moreover, Gen Prayut declared himself a politician, a move that came amid speculation that a military-backed political party was being formed to support him as prime minister after an election.
According to the sources, the prime minister also alienated the public when he came out to defend Gen Prawit over the luxury watch scandal and claimed it was “a personal issue”.
A recent Bangkok Poll showed Gen Prayut’s support has dropped significantly. Only 36.8% of of 1,114 respondents said they would back Gen Prayut to stay on as premier, compared with 52.8% in an opinion survey conducted in May last year. About 35% said they would not support him while 28.4% abstained.
Meanwhile, a Nida poll found last week that almost 80% of respondents did not view the NCPO as a transparent body. Only 17% had confidence in its transparency. The other 7% declined to answer.
Witthaya Kaewparadai, a core member of the defunct PDRC which supported the military coup, said the Prayut government’s weaknesses are a lack of progress in national reforms and a lack of transparency.
Mr Witthaya said the military government showed a strong determination to tackle graft and corruption after seizing power but its efforts appeared to be faltering.
The luxury watch scandal involving Gen Prawit also caused the public to lose confidence, he said.
“Politics means you have to care about the public sentiment. If [the government] refuses to take that into consideration, it will turn their supporters away. It’s normal for the support base to shrink because the people have high expectations,” he said. According to Mr Witthaya, the regime cannot rely on the support of the armed forces alone. He said public confidence is likely to pick up if the government starts to heed public opinions.
Yutthaporn Isarachai, a political scientist at Sukhothai Thammathirat University, said election delays and a lack of progress in reforms have put a dent in the government’s image. He said the former PDRC, which is known to support Gen Prayut, is also losing its confidence in the regime.
What the government can do to turn the situation around is to set the election date and strictly follow the political roadmap, he said. “Politics is a key element to restore public confidence,” he said.
If Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and his NCPO brothers are not in the habit of checking the temperature, it’s the time for them to start. It would be especially useful now that the political mercury is on the rise, with gatherings of members of civic groups in Bangkok and upcountry. It’s the first major challenge to the regime since it took power nearly four years ago on May 22, 2014.
The general-turned-prime minister may well look back at that month of May with pride at how he and the NCPO defused a political crisis without the use of force. But it looks set to be very different this year, after a sharp rise in public disapproval of the regime.
In fact, when looking back into the past, Gen Prayut should not stop at the May 22 putsch, but go further to what happened to the military in the same month in 1992, when his predecessor, Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon, shrugged off a challenge by the people and paid a high political price.
The prime minister should not forget that moment in history when Gen Suchinda was forced to step down in disgrace.
I believe state authorities will try to downplay the impact of the civic groups’ gatherings, which have drawn heavyweights from opposite ends of the political spectrum. I wouldn’t be surprised if the authorities employ the same, worn-out tactics used to attempt to discredit the civic groups of 1992.
The real challenge for a leader, especially one who runs the country with absolute power, is in surveying the political landscape and reacting accordingly, despite subordinates feeding him distorted information in a bid to keep placating their boss. (How sure can the prime minister be that the cheers of some Isan villagers for him to stay on in power were real?)
More importantly, it would be a mistake if Gen Prayut assumes that the public silence over the military’s manoeuvres represents their full support for him and the NCPO. It would be an even bigger mistake if he takes that silence as a blank cheque to pursue his
political ambitions by whatever means.
The march to Isan by those in the civic movement indicates to a certain extent that public patience is wearing thin, especially with the use of power in the absence of a transparent mechanism of checks and balances. The regime must think carefully about how it will deal with this disapproval. Adopting heavy-handed
measures, as Gen Suchinda did, would likely backfire.
Another big question for Gen Prayut is what will he do when public sentiment swings toward an elected prime minister and not an outsider?
This is not to suggest that Thais are hardcore supporters of democracy. In fact, it’s safe to say many would still
welcome a guided democracy under a strong leader, perhaps even one rather like Gen Prayut. Thais would maintain their support for such a leader for as long as he or she proves their trustworthiness — a test the current regime may fail.
The simmering frustration is not about a 90-day delay of the next election, but more about an illegitimate attempt by the regime to maintain power.
It’s also time for Gen Prayut to pay serious attention to the wise words of Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, president of the Privy Council and a former prime minister, who last year warned the former that he had already drained his well of support. It’s rare for Gen Prem to issue such a straightforward warning, one which came just as the regime’s popularity started to nosedive following the watch scandal involving his deputy, Gen Prawit Wongsuwon.
The senior statesman’s warning is a slap on the wrist, not only of Gen Prayut, but also that of Gen Prawit. After all, it’s the “wrist” of the latter that has shaken public trust in the regime, while the poor reactions to the scandal by the prime minister and the NACC have simply fuelled public anger.
Gen Prem may not have said it, but he set a good example in knowing when enough was enough.
As political support for him started to wither after nearly a decade, he turned his back on politics and stepped down gracefully.
There is no way of knowing whether Gen Prayut has checked the political temperature lately. But if he fails to do so, he will feel the heat, sooner rather than later.
The real challenge for a leader is in surveying the political landscape and reacting accordingly.