Is it “Thai Style Democracy?” or Thai Style Dictatorship?” What ever it is, Thailand’s leader, Prayuth, holds “Absolute Power.”
The following is from Prachathai (Source)
Submitted by taweporn on Sat, 22/11/2014 – 10:05
British Ambassador Mark Kent on Thursday met with junta leader and Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha and urged the general to return democracy to Thailand and respect human rights.
According to the UK in Thailand Facebook page, Kent called on Gen Prayut to discuss a range of issues. He urged PM Gen Prayut to fulfil his promise to restore democracy to Thailand by the end of 2015, and to maintain respect for human rights.
Ambassador Kent also raised tourist safety and security and the importance of maintaining an open, fair and transparent business environment for investors. He asked for assurances that British and other foreign investment in Thailand would not be jeopardized by new legislation.
Kent affirmed that the UK stands ready to engage with Thai ministries and agencies, as well as the private sector and civil society, to take forward work in all these areas and on other issues of mutual interest.
The following is from the Wikipedia:
A military dictatorship is a form of government different from civilian dictatorship for a number of reasons: their motivations for seizing power, the institutions through which they organize their rule, and the ways in which they leave power. Often viewing itself as saving the nation from the corrupt or myopic civilian politicians, a military dictatorship justify its position as “neutral” arbiters on the basis of their membership within the armed forces. For example, many juntas adopt titles, such as “National Redemption Council”, “Committee of National Restoration”, or “National Liberation Committee”. Military leaders often rule as a junta, selecting one of them as the head. For instance, Zhelyu Zhelev has argued that Fascist regimes such as Nazi Germany had its power run by the party and its various civic instituitions, and that a military coup
Since 1945 Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East have been common areas for all military dictatorships. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the military often has more cohesion and institutional structure than most of the civilian institutions of society.
The typical military dictatorship in Latin America was ruled by a junta (derived from a Spanish word which can be translated as “conference” or “board”), or a committee composed of several officers, often from the military’s most senior leadership, but in other cases less senior, as evidenced by the term colonels’ regime, where the military leaders remained loyal to the previous regime. Other military dictatorships are entirely in the hands of a single officer, sometimes called a caudillo, usually the senior army commander. In either case, the chairman of the junta or the single commander may often personally assume office as head of state.
In the Middle East, Africa and Spain, military governments more often came to be led by a single powerful person, and were autocracies in addition to military dictatorships. Leaders like Idi Amin, Sani Abacha, Muammar Gaddafi, Gamal Abdul Nasser and Francisco Franco worked to develop a personality cult and became the face of the nation inside and outside their countries.
Conversely, other military dictatorships may gradually restore significant components of civilian government while the senior military commander still maintains executive political power. In Pakistan, ruling Generals Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1977–1988) and Pervez Musharraf (1999–2008) have held singular referendums to elect themselves President of Pakistan for additional terms forbidden by the constitution.
In the past, military juntas have justified their rule as a way of bringing political stability for the nation or rescuing it from the threat of “dangerous ideologies“. For example, in Latin America, the threat of communism was often used. Military regimes tend to portray themselves as non-partisan, as a “neutral” party that can provide interim leadership in times of turmoil, and also tend to portray civilian politicians as corrupt and ineffective. One of the almost universal characteristics of a military government is the institution of martial law or a permanent state of emergency.
In pre-modern times, in many societies a monarch, tribal chief, or big man could gain or maintain power through interpersonal combat, by personally leading a military force against rival factions, or by personally providing for the physical security of followers. (This might be referred to as a might makes right system.) Due to the large number of historic regimes of this type that could arguably be classed as military dictatorships, the below list is limited to those administrations in power at some point since 1800. Some regimes such as Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, while they pursued considerable aggressive and expansionist strategies, were not strictly run by the military and so are not included below.