It is with a measure of relief, albeit tinged with deep scepticism, that we are finally witnessing the conclusion of the Prayut Chan-ocha era in Thailand. However, as one tyrant steps aside, we must never forget those who, like unseen puppeteers, pulled the strings from behind the scenes. The sobering truth is that the influence of these puppet masters — from his coup companion Prawit Wongsuwan, to the deep-pocketed businesses and military — persists, even after Prayut’s exit.
Prawit Wongsuwan, a military general and key ally of Chan-ocha, was the engineer behind the political and military machine that catapulted Prayut to power. Prawit, himself a frequent target of anti-corruption probes, exhibits an uncanny knack for maintaining his grasp on power. Even now, after Prayut’s resignation from politics, Prawit and his people are positioning the Palang Pracharat Party to takeover should Move Forward fail to get the necessary votes. His influence should not be underestimated. With the Prayut era ending, we must be vigilant not to allow the likes of Prawit to rebrand and reshape their image.
Furthermore, we cannot ignore the role that numerous businesses played in bolstering the Prayut regime. Corporations — whether motivated by profit, protection, or the promise of influence — financed and backed his administration. Today, many of these enterprises still wield an unhealthy degree of influence over Thai politics. Democracy, if we are to call it such, should never be for sale to the highest bidder.
In this tangled web of power, the military’s role is perhaps the most pernicious. Like an uninvited guest who refuses to leave, the military has consistently intervened in Thailand’s democratic processes. The notion that they are preserving tradition by repeatedly overthrowing democratically elected governments is a tragic perversion of the concept of tradition itself.
While we should not be averse to the idea of change and adaptation, the evolution we should seek is one that promotes progress and not regression. The military’s supposed guardianship of tradition has instead resulted in a political culture that is increasingly regressive and resistant to change.
Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that Prayut’s former cabinet members now occupy high-ranking seats in other political parties. This insidious form of political chameleonism is not only deceptive but also toxic to the future of Thai politics. The metaphor of snakes in the grass is more than apt; these are opportunists who shed their skins but retain their venom, ready to strike at the heart of democracy when given a chance.
The end of the Prayut era should not signify a collective amnesia of the past. Instead, it should mark the beginning of a rigorous public accounting for the puppet masters who held sway during his time in power. As Thailand forges a path forward, its citizens must remain vigilant, calling out and resisting these enduring power structures.
The exit of Prayut Chan-ocha is undoubtedly a significant milestone in Thailand’s political history. However, it is essential to remember that change is more than just switching the nameplate on the leader’s desk. It is about rooting out the deep-seated systems of power and privilege that enabled a culture of undemocratic practices to flourish.
And it is about nurturing a society where power rests not with shadowy puppet masters, but with the democratic will of the people. In the grand theater of democracy, the puppets must not be allowed to continue their dance, especially when the puppet masters still hold the strings.