A Comparative Analysis of Burma and Thailand’s Military Regimes

The purpose of this paper is to critically compare the involvement of the military in the authoritarian regimes of Burma and Thailand. Both of these Southeast Asian countries have experienced continued military style takeovers that have led to changes in the leadership of their nations. The involvement of each nation’s military in Burma and Thailand’s political affairs points to an authoritarian regime. Burma, quite the opposite of Thailand is a young nation that was previously under British rule and as a result has a long pathway before political stability can come about. This is in contrast to Thailand that has never been ruled by any outside countries. That aside, Thailand traditionally is ruled by authoritarian values, although their political system is an open democratic political system now, they are of a lesser calibre than the oppressive nature of Burma. However, taking into account the involvement of the military in influencing the running of these two nations, both military’s have different values and reasons for causing political unrest. By critically comparing the involvement of Thailand and Burma’s military in governance it’s hoped that a conclusion can be made in determining the possible futures of each nation. The structure of Burma and Thailand’s governments is that of an authoritarian nature that’s controlled by each nation’s military.

The very nature of Authoritarianism is to force blind submission to the leadership. In contrast, democracy encourages all citizens to participate in electing individuals to participate in the governing of their country. Encyclopaedia Britannica defines authoritarianism as the “principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014). Authoritarianism is the principle of believing in authority more than that of an individual’s right to freedom. This definition describes in detail what has been seen in the governments of Thailand and Burma. However, there is a difference between the extent of each nation’s authoritarian nature. As described by P. Calvert and S. Calvert in Politics and Society in the Developing World, the longer established an authoritative regime is, the less it relies on the use of force (Calvert & Calvert, 2007).

Continue reading...