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.
