The core criticism levelled at the National Council for Peace and Order since 2014 is that it has operated a dictatorial regime in which civil liberties are rescinded.

In a bid to calm public sentiment, the coup-makers promised to pave the way back to democracy, with Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha even insisting that “today, we are 99 per cent democratic”.

The junta attempted to burnish that claim by bowing to public demands for a referendum on the charter draft when the drafting process started in late 2014.

If voters endorse the junta-sponsored draft in two months’ time, the NCPO will also claim a degree of legitimacy to continue in power. But if the poll result goes the other way, the junta will face new challenges and an uphill battle.

As such, it is perfectly understandable that the NCPO wants the referendum to go smoothly and render a result that offers the credibility it sorely needs. However, if that process includes the convenient burial of all opposition voices, the end result will be neither impressive nor an endorsement of junta rule.

The recent suppression of referendum-monitoring stations set up by red shirts is a case in point. The NCPO has successfully thwarted their launch, but this does not mean that it has secured a victory. If anything, the opposite is the case.

Because the claimed purpose of the centres was to monitor for fraud, red-shirt leaders like Jatuporn Prompan and Nattawut Saikuar can now ask, “If you’re not planning to cheat, then what are you afraid of?”

They also have an excuse to seek assistance from international agencies for scrutiny of the vote, adding pressure to an NCPO already facing strong criticism over its restrictions against campaigning and its wider ban on political activities. Of particular concern is vague wording in the referendum law that seems aimed at instilling an atmosphere of fear and silence rather than open debate.

The situation is exacerbated by contradicting statements made almost daily by the authorities. We were assured that wearing a T-shirt with a “vote no” slogan was not illegal, only to be told a day or two later that it is an offence. Prayut announced that red shirts could set up referendum monitoring centres, then the next day said something entirely different.

Amid all the restrictions and confusion, concern is growing over whether the referendum can be free and fair.

The atmosphere is an unhealthy one not just for the public, but also for the regime that has imposed it. While the public is denied the information necessary to making informed decisions at the polling booth, the referendum result cannot be considered an endorsement of the current regime. If the draft charter passes under these undemocratic conditions, the junta’s claim to be safeguarding the passage back to democracy will ring more hollow than ever.

chanwanpen92@gmail.com