But by overreaching, the powerful undermine the legitimacy of their own rule and thereby threaten their position.

Consider the following three cases of exercising power. We do not judge which case is right or wrong, but merely note that those in authority face questions about the way they use their power.

The first case involves campaigning ahead of the August 7 national referendum on the draft constitution. Voters are supposed to receive sufficient information upon which to base their final decisions. But this will only be the case if both sides of the argument are presented in open and public campaigning.

Authorities have however banned advocates from speaking either for or against the draft constitution in public. Voters’ access to information has thus been closed off. Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan has banned T-shirts with slogans calling for a yes or a no vote.

“Campaigning is not allowed. You may dislike or like the draft. It’s fine to keep it to yourself. But you can’t wear shirts calling for people to vote yes or no,” General Prawit said.

The ban has prompted many to question whether there is sufficient reason or legitimacy for such a drastic move.

Another case involves the detention of Pheu Thai politician Watana Muangsuk, for openly criticising the draft charter. Watana’s critics describe his actions as politically motivated and note they violated a ruling made by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).

In reality, Watana was simply expressing an opinion which may or may not be correct. His views might find sympathy with many, while upsetting others, including the generals in power. But international norms dictate that expressing an opinion in a peaceful manner is not illegal. It is surely every individual’s basic right to voice their opinion.

So far Watana’s arrest has drawn criticism from Swiss and Canadian diplomats, but others in the international community are sure to follow suit. International principles are at stake here, and Thai authorities are bound to come under more pressure.

The final case involves the circumstances in which Defence Ministry permanent secretary General Preecha Chan-o-cha’s son was appointed an officer after graduating in mass communications. Observers are querying why Preecha’s son gained the job ahead of thousands of other graduates with similar or better qualifications.

General Preecha is the younger brother of Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha, who also heads the NCPO.

Preecha secretly signed the form approving his son’s appointment, thus apparently ignoring the requirement that members of the military be appointed on merit and leaving himself open to accusations of graft.

Subsequent “explanations” from the people involved have done little to clear those suspicions. “Many people in the military do the same thing,” Preecha retorted, as if that might legitimise what appears to be a straightforward case of nepotism.

History tells us that power is a double-edged sword. It can bring great benefits to the people, but it can also cause long-lasting damage to both those who wield it and those who live according to its dictates.

And in the volatile state of Thai politics, a wrong move can suddenly turn the advantage of power into an illegitimate authority at odds with the people it is supposed to serve.