Thais Trust Military Over Government Amid Rising Cambodian Tensions
The numbers tell a story, and it’s not a particularly comforting one for advocates of civilian control over the military. A recent Nida Poll in Thailand, focusing on the ongoing tensions with Cambodia over border disputes, reveals a striking disparity in public trust: Thais overwhelmingly favor the military’s handling of the situation over that of their own government or Foreign Ministry. As detailed in these recent findings, a majority expresses high confidence in the armed forces' ability to protect national interests, while significant portions harbor little to no confidence in the government’s capabilities. Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s visit to a military base on the Cambodian border can be seen, in this light, as an attempt to bridge this gap, to demonstrate solidarity, and project strength where the public already sees it.
This isn’t just about a single border dispute. It’s about the deeper currents of Thai politics and society, where the military has historically played a powerful, often interventionist, role. The poll also reveals a strong undercurrent of nationalism, with a vast majority supporting the martial sentiment expressed in the national anthem: “Thailand values peace but is never a coward when it comes to battle.” This sentiment, while perhaps understandable in a region with a long history of conflict, can also be easily weaponized to justify military overreach and undermine democratic institutions.
The reasons for this divergence in trust are likely multifaceted, including:
- Perceived Competence: The military is often seen as efficient and decisive, particularly in security matters, qualities that civilian administrations may struggle to project.
- Historical Legacy: Thailand’s history of coups and military rule has created a culture where the armed forces are viewed as a guardian of national stability, even if that stability comes at the expense of democratic norms.
- Communication Effectiveness: The military might be more effective at communicating its narrative, presenting a clear and consistent message of national defense, while the government and Foreign Ministry might appear bogged down in diplomatic nuances and bureaucratic complexities.
- Underlying Political Dynamics: It is plausible that negative views on the government may simply be projected onto their handling of foreign affairs.
This dynamic creates a perilous situation. When a significant portion of the population places more trust in the military than in the elected government, the potential for instability increases. It becomes easier for the military to justify interventions, to frame itself as the protector of the nation against both external and internal threats.
The findings suggest a concerning trend: a willingness to prioritize perceived security and strength, embodied by the military, over the messier, more complex processes of diplomacy and democratic governance. This is not just a matter of public opinion; it’s a matter of institutional balance and the long-term health of Thai democracy.
The question, then, is how to bridge this divide. How can the civilian government regain public trust and assert its authority over national security policy? It requires more than just photo opportunities at military bases. It demands a commitment to transparency, accountability, and a consistent articulation of a foreign policy that reflects both national interests and democratic values. Failure to address this imbalance risks further eroding public confidence in civilian institutions and emboldening the military to play an even more dominant role in Thai politics. And that’s a trajectory few democracies can successfully navigate.
