Thailand has a problem: it has a national council running the place which was established through a coup and, despite the presence of an assembly, the national council is the executive and legislative. The other issue is they have a monarch who fancies himself in the policy arena. Neither the council, nor the monarch, have had to compete in the public eye, or face competition from meritorious members of Thai society, in order to have their policies and competency ratified with public approval. In such an environment the first thing to tank will be foreign confidence, usually precipitated by foreign investment leaving the country - the second thing is usually the domestic economy.

The Economist has an article: Rebranding Thaksinomics . The Economist is mainly interested in market liberalisation so it glosses over the issues of the Thaksin's government - even though those issues should have been solved democratically and not through a military claim to a state of exception in the coup.

The Economist writes:

The government's espousal of a "sufficiency economy" theory, developed by King Bhumibol, further fuelled suspicions that it plans a partial retreat from Thailand's hitherto liberal economic stance. No, insisted the prime minister, General Surayud Chulanont, the sufficiency economy "does not by any means imply a rejection of globalisation". So what does it mean? The general was launching a report on Thailand by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which promised to answer that very question. It explains that the sufficiency theory is for sustainability, moderation and broad-based development; and against excessive risk-taking, inequality and other evils.

The king developed his theory during the 1997 Asian economic crisis, when the consequences of years of reckless growth caught up with Thailand. But Thailand's finances are now much more solid and great progress has been made in bringing health care and education to the rural poor--as the royal theory proposes. Like so many generals, the leaders of last September's coup seem to be fighting the last war.

The coup leadership has also restricted foreign ownership of Thai companies and currency restrictions :

Central bank penalties imposed last month on foreign investments of less than a year sparked the Thai stock market's biggest slide in 16 years, prompting the rule to be abandoned for equity funds a day later. The controls remain for bonds, real- estate mutual funds and foreign-currency borrowings.

Elected politicians tend to have their political room limited by popular opinion, upcoming elections, a bureaucracy which exists beyond one administration, non political institutions such as the reserve bank and media; as well as constitutionalism which limits the absolute control of any elected member or minister.

Coups and monarchs have no such limits, especially when they are operating in a state of exception. It is seen again and again - state of emergency rule is inefficient, as is political inequality which is established by hereditary or violent means.

Essentially, anyone who would seek to govern by such means is inherently unfit to do so.

More Reading on Thailand

• Thailand
• State of Emergency
• The Issue of Thailand's Junta
• Thai Liberty
• Political Inequality in Thailand
• When Monarchy and Coup Align In Inefficiency
• The Political Problem of Thailand
• Democracy in Thailand