A summary of my interview in Matichon, with respect to comments from the Pheu Thai Party on the ban of political activities by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO)

A summary of my interview in Matichon, with respect to comments from the Pheu Thai Party on the ban of political activities by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO)

I argued that all of the justifications announced by the NCPO and military are unreasonable and invalid because those justifications were driven solely by the NCPO’s perceptions.

Indeed, no political activities should have been prohibited in the first place, and political parties should have been permitted to function freely soon after the 2014 military coup d’état.

I argued that the central reason for the continuation of the political ban is fundamentally based on the NCPO securing and maintain its grip on power; by limiting freedom of expression, there is no credible threat to the NCPO’s absolute power. Meanwhile, the political ban is also an effective way of controlling what people know, through the NCPO’s control of access to alternative sources of information ensuring that people only get a one-sided view.

It has been observed that the ban of political activities have been implemented in a very selective manner, because a few members of the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) are able to meet with local communities without being identified for what they are; a political organisation. Similar actions from opponents of the NCPO, however, are normally accused of being politically motivated.

Disagreements are normal in a democratic society, therefore, if the NCPO argues that disagreements are a threat to security, this reflects a lack of understanding of some basic principles of a democratic culture.

It has been rather clear that the NCPO and the military will maintain its grip on power if there is a General Election in 2018. Thus, elections are not an indication for the end of military control and dictatorship. Instead, it is likely that the military is consolidating a Thai version of “illiberal democracy,” characterised by imposing limitations on freedoms and liberty. This form of democracy will not be in the interests of the country, because such a scenario will ensure that the state will have greater power than the people. As a result, the state machinery will be less transparent, and exacerbate Thailand’s existing corruption problems.

-Titipol Phakdeewanich-

A summary of my interview with respect to the maintaining of the political ban by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO)

A summary of my interview with respect to the maintaining of the political ban by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO):

The current state of Thai politics is mostly interpreted by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), while its justification to deny the lifting of political ban is political disorder.

Question arise again over the NCPO’s definition of political disorder. I argued that when there are disagreements with the NCPO, the disagreements cannot be simply classified as political sedition and inciting dissent.

Denying the ability for political parties to organise any political activities is a denial of democracy, which undermines confidence in the NCPO’s democratic timeline to return to democracy in November 2018.

I argued that the NCPO continues to maintain its political ban, partly,  because of diminishing pressure from the international community, for example Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-O-Cha’s trip to Washington was a form of endorsement from the US.

The US administration, under President Donald Trump, has sent out a rather clear message that it intends to turn a blind eye towards Thai democracy, almost giving a green light to the Thai military government.

The maintenance of the political ban demonstrates that Thailand has been intentionally violating its international commitment to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Indeed, the political ban does not only affect political parties but it is also disadvantageous for Thai constituents. Instead the political ban only serves the interests of the NCPO itself, as beyond the NCPO itself, information is very limited.