Since that day, the country has become “very militarised”, according to some analysts, who fear that military-style thinking and practices will hold Thailand back rather than allow it to move forward.

Associate Professor Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of Chulalongkorn University’s Institute of Security and International Studies in the Political Science Faculty, said Thai politics had become very militarised over the past three years, given that army officers had taken key positions of political power and corporate interest, with roles as law-makers and becoming directors in state enterprises.

This level of militarisation and the ubiquitous role of the military, he said, had not been seen since the 1950s and 60s. The pendulum in civil-military relations had clearly swung in the generals’ favour.

“It is evident that Thailand has a military government, overseen by a junta,” Thitinan said. “It is astonishing that not long ago many people thought Thailand was in the process of democratic consolidation.”

The more the military became involved in politics, the more its role became more entrenched, he said. What can be clearly seen is the military has sought to ensure long-term “supervision” of Thai politics via the drafting of a new constitution.

This, he said, meant Thai society was likely to see more tension ahead that may end up being resolved through conflict and confrontation.

In this sorry state of affairs, civilian politicians are equal culprits, he said, partly because elected politicians were not able to build enough legitimacy and popular support to sustain their rule. If people had more faith in elected politicians, the last two coups would have been much harder to stage, but this does not mean military generals are any better, Thitinan said.

“After three years, it is clear once again that there is no such thing as a good coup. The initial intention of the coup-makers may have been noble but eventually the reality will be about their power and interests,” he said.

Prof Thitinan said Thailand’s democratic system has had many shortcomings but the chief lesson should be the need to fix it from within rather than looking for outside answers.

As the country is stuck in this phase of military rule, Thai politics is now so unbalanced and was searching for a new balance, he said. That requires compromise and accommodation from all the major political actors, he added.

“If any side tries to win most of it or all of it, instead of sharing some of it, we will likely encounter more trouble ahead,” he said.

General Ekkachai Srivilas, director of the Office of Peace and Governance at King Prachadipok Institute, said General Prayut Chan-o-cha and his team were better off in mapping out strategies and goals, but the shortcoming of being military officers was that they had studied the same set of knowledge and thinking. Plus, military grooming meant that hardly anyone dared to argue with their seniors. As a result, hardly any innovation, political or social, was likely to occur, he said.

But the world was complex, he said, so the old sets of military knowledge and thinking could not keep up. Military people, he said, focus mostly on security issues, while leaving other facets and considerations behind.

Thailand has a challenge in relation to its structures, regimes and more importantly, the quality of its people, he said. Without realising these facts and having the flexibility to adjust their way of thinking to embrace them, it was very likely that people would be led into a new “black hole”.

“You must realist that the military are not groomed or taught to work in politics,” Ekkachai said. “We are taught to fight and win over enemies, but the very fact at present is Thai people are not enemies that the military have to fight and win over.

“This will not be made possible by exercising hard powers but hearts. Power may help you get things done, but that is just temporary.”

Ekkachai believed that the military plan to fade out of politics one day, but said they would stay because this is a transitional period. He suggested that they should open their minds more and listen to others.

“There is one fact that we have to accept – the military can never go along with democracy. They are contradictory to one another by nature. The military should learn more, of the world around them, and of people around them,” the retired general said.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, meanwhile, said a general expectation was for the NCPO, when they step down, to leave Thai politics in better shape than before the coup they staged in May 2014.

The NCPO would be assessed by the public, he said, on whether or not they left Thai politics in better shape. For the rest of their time, Abhisit said the NCPO had to think about how to make politics work better after the next election than prior to the coup.

“In doing so, they have to stick to democratic principles,” Abhisit said, adding that the military should go back to the barracks and focus on taking care of security matters. That would be the best thing for them to do after Thailand sees an election and democracy returns, he said.

To mark the third anniversary of the coup staged by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) on May 22, 2014, The Nation this week is publishing a series of articles looking at the event that has brought Thailand to the point where it is today.