Stealing an election VIII

The Economist comments on The Dictator’s denial that he’s a political vacuum cleaner.

Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha made the denial “responding to the accusation that he was trying to hoover up support from political powerbrokers in anticipation of the restoration of democracy.”

Huh? What “restoration of democracy” has the newspaper imagined?

The one conducted by the military dictatorship with rules that “deliberately weakens existing political parties”? The one that will likely produce “a chaotic coalition, perhaps with Mr Prayuth, pretending to be surprised and reluctant, staying on as prime minister”?

We guess they mean the faux democracy foisted on the country by yet another military dictator.

The one where “the army, although notionally committed to free elections, seems determined to make sure that voters are prevented from repeating their past mistakes.”

Huh “notionally committed”?

Committed like establishing rules and practices that allow no free and fair election? Perhaps that kind of notional commitment.

The commitment made by generals who “have presided over widespread human-rights abuses; economic growth is relatively wan; workers are burdened by high personal debt and foreign investors have been scared away.”

That’s the commitment. And its for a faux election that the generals plan to “win.”

The same generals who have “smother[ed] the existing parties” and prevented them from doing anything much at all. The generals who have smothered news they don’t like or want.

The same generals who “passed [a law] last month bans policies that are intended to improve the government’s popularity but that may cause long-term damage to the economy or society—a definition so sweeping as to encompass nearly any government decision.” That’s while dishing out billions in election buying by the generals.

The junta wants to “win” and stay, for years and years. That’s the generals’ notional “democracy.”