What is the point of holding a general election when a military coup is lurking just around the corner?
New army chief Gen Apirat Kongsompong made headlines last week after saying another coup is possible if political unrest returns.
Atiya Achakulwisut is a columnist, Bangkok Post.
The statement is poignant, not just because it has dimmed the light of a return to democracy after four years under military rule but because it suggested that authoritarianism will always be the answer for Thai society.
But the assertion is contradictory to reality. If a coup is a solution, why should another one be needed?
And since Gen Apirat's statement has essentially confirmed that the 2014 coup by Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha has not put the country on a safe enough track where violence can be guaranteed not to return, why should we do the same thing that has proven to have failed?
In a way, Gen Apirat may be credited for having the sincerity to admit that a fresh coup could be launched. He could have vowed not to do it to avoid controversy, then gone ahead and staged one when he believed it necessary. He would have then claimed he had no choice but to do it for the sake of the country. Indeed, that is how a coup has always been done.
It's possible the new army chief made the coup threat public to send a message to politicians not to stray so far as to instigate violence ahead of the poll.
But as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In refusing to rule out the possibility of another military takeover even for the benevolent purpose of maintaining peace, Gen Apirat is putting on full display an anti-democratic attitude.
The statement may be honest, even practical in his opinion, but it is surely not healthy for the spirit of democracy necessary during the lead-up to the poll. Despite criticism of the military government having an advantage over its competitors, hopes are still high that the next election will be free and fair and the results will be accepted by all sides.
Gen Apirat's ominous warning that after the long wait and great expectations, the country could end up with yet another military coup has dampened the atmosphere.
That is not all. The new army chief took the chance to paint such coups in glowing colours. A putsch is an act of sacrifice, Gen Apirat said. Soldiers are never hungry for power. They seize power only to maintain order. He specifically referred to the 2014 coup as a personal sacrifice by the current prime minister Gen Prayut whom he believed had no other choice to prevent the country from descending into chaos.
If Gen Prayut had not made the decision, no one can say what might have happened, Gen Apirat said.
It's true, we will never know. Gen Prayut made the decision for us and the past four years under the military regime are what we have.
Contrary to what Gen Apirat or other putsch supporters believe, the Prayut coup may have brought about a facade of peace, but it has solved nothing.
Dictatorship is not an effective means of conflict resolution. The iron-fist approach, ridding people of certain basic rights and freedoms, may work in suppressing immediate violence or clashes but the ensuing peace is superficial and likely to be short-term. As long as the root cause of the conflicts remains unaddressed, the added pressure of a dictatorship on top will only deepen them.
What we are witnessing at present should be evidence enough. It has been more than four years since Gen Prayut took over -- can anybody say that Thailand is enjoying lasting peace? If the army chief himself is still concerned, it's case closed for another coup.
Can we say that the military regime has addressed the root cause of political conflicts, social rifts and extreme hatred, and made progress in terms of reconciliation? Are we assured that electoral politics will be played according to the rules and will not go astray as in the past?
The answers are still "no". The Prayut coup has not fixed immediate social ills, nor has it touched the structural problems that make Thai society prone to political manipulation, that trapped its people in profound resentment against one another.
The truth is that had the coup been the answer to the country's political woes, the army chief would not have to be ambivalent about a repeat act. Gen Apirat could then concentrate on being a soldier and not worry about making a "sacrifice".
Gen Apirat and the military regime have often urged people to do their duty and politicians to play by the rules. They must set the example.