"Soldiers are good-natured protectors of the country," reads one banner outside an army barracks in Bangkok. This image of the military as neutral, clean, self-sacrificing protectors of Thailand is echoed by the Thai army’s commander in chief, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ochais.  He claimed that he ordered the coup in order to “restore order and push through political reform," “stop violence,” and seek “a way out of [the country’s] crisis.” He later said he was sacrificing himself to help his country.

 

A number of both Thais and foreigners buy this rhetoric and believe that it was a ‘good’ coup.  For example, a Thai Facebook user proclaimed, “We could care less if some foreigners say the coup was the equivalent of a military dictatorship, because many of them are not well-informed about the level of corruption in Thailand.”

 

However, perhaps these people are not themselves well-informed about the history of past coups and the military’s less-than-clean record once in power.   Each coup, including the most recent one in 2006, in which Prayuth played a key role, has followed similar patterns.  The military always justifies the coup on the grounds of protecting the interests of the people and nation.  They publicly state that by overthrowing the current government they will save the nation and Thais from various threats, such as communism, bad governance, corruption, and this year, violence.  For example, the promoters of the 1947 coup declared that they were “rid[ding] the country once and for all of vestiges of communism” and “installing a government which will respect the principles of Nation, Religion, and King.”   In the 1991 coup, the military leaders specified the need to stop corruption.   In the 2006 coup, the Council for National Security (CNS) claimed that it overthrew the Thaskin Shinawatra government in order to rescue Thai democracy from the "rampant corruption" of his administration and heal deep schisms within Thai society caused by Thaksin.   

 

However, each time the reality of what they actually did differ sharply from their rhetoric.  They used the coups as a platform to fill their own pockets and bulge the budget of the military.  As Thai historian Chris Baker writes, “The military [has frequently] squeezed private profit out of governmental expenditure flows by taking a cut from contracts and concessions.”   They have exploited the vast resources of the state to profit from various businesses, such as opium and timber, to gain access to land ownership, and sometimes even to directly plunder the state.   For example, in the 1950s, Field Marshall Sarit took control of the Lottery Bureau and siphoned $12 million from the lottery’s earnings into pseudonymous bank accounts.   He died with an estimated fortune of around $USD 2.8 million and 22,000 rai (3,520 hectare) of land.  While the profiteeing of the 1991 and 2006 coup regimes paled in comparison to that of Sarit’s regime, their leaders nonetheless directed significant state resources towards the military and themselves.  The 1991 coup leaders and their allies were just as corrupt as the politicians they replaced, meddling in many government projects to ensure that they benefited financially.  In 2007 the government allocated Bt115 billion to the military, a 33% increase from 2006, and in 2008 its budget furthered burgeoned 24% to 143 billion Baht.  In October 2007, the military-appointed Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont acquired land illegally to build a home in a national forest reserve.    

 

Global indices also suggest that corruption became worse after the 2006 coup.  In the World Bank's Control of Corruption Indicator, Thailand fell from 54 (out of 100) in 2005 to 43 in 2007. In Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, the country dropped dramatically from ranking 59th worldwide in 2005 to 84th in 2007.  The military’s shady procurement deals contributed to this drop.  For example, in 2009, the military purchased a 350 million Baht ($10.7 million) leaky surveillance blimp and 700 GT200 bomb detectors, each costing 900,000 Baht ($27,410). It turned out that the detectors had no working mechanical parts.  But these purchases were never investigated. Right now that the military has complete control, oversight agencies will be reluctant or lack the power to audit military purchases and check corruption.   

 

Further, each time after obtaining power through a coup, despite vowing to hand over power in a short time, military leaders have been reluctant to withdraw or lose their influence.  Instead, they have sought to maintain power through harnessing state resources and restructuring the government so that they and their allies can stay in control.  After initiating a coup in 1957, Sarit Thanarat served as Prime Minister until his death in 1963.  After leading the coup in 1991 and appointing a Prime Minister, Suchinda Kraprayoon became Prime Minister himself in 1992.  In 2006, top military brass were appointed as directors of state-owned enterprises and regulatory agencies and the 2007 Constitution which they drafted contained many anti-democratic measures which protected their and their allies' interests.  Additionally, in 2007, most of the 74 appointed Senators had ties to the military.  This time, as deposed Minister Chaturon Chaisaeng predicts, they will once again seek to “redesign the system so that the parties they don’t like cannot run the government.”  

 

Judging by the patterns which emerged after each of the past 18 military coups during the past 82 years, especially the most recent one in which Prayuth took part, we should not expect any different behavior this time despite Prayuth’s rhetoric of heroically sacrificing himself to protect the country.  Rather, he and his allies will personally reap rewards from seizing power, corruption will unlikely diminish, and they will be reluctant to relinquish power and influence despite their pledge to have an election in 15 months. We should expect generals to be appointed to the boards of state-owned enterprises, underhanded military procurement deals to transpire, and the military’s coffers to swell once again.  So isn’t it a bit ironic that many Thai protesters decried the previous government’s corruption and autocracy and welcomed the military coup, but the coup government will likely be just as corrupt and autocratic or even more so than the government they protested against?