Civic Network Demands 4 Points Against Blue Regime
Civic networks held a wall-breaking protest against the blue regime, as iLaw points out the Senate mechanism mirrors the NCPO era.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
- Civic networks organized a symbolic wall-breaking protest against the blue regime
- iLaw highlights that the Senate mechanism functions similarly to the NCPO era
- A 4-point statement focuses on political restructuring and power checks
- Calls for public awareness regarding state power monopolization
Civic networks and political movement groups gathered to organize a symbolic protest themed around breaking down the walls of the so-called blue regime. Representatives from civil society participated to voice their concerns over the current political landscape and the systematic consolidation of state power.
During the event, Yingcheep Chachanont, known as Tha from iLaw (Internet Law Reform Dialogue), delivered a keynote speech analyzing the current power structures. He explicitly stated that the network and structure constituting the blue regime bear no fundamental difference from the power exercised by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) in the past.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
The iLaw representative emphasized that the most crucial mechanism driving this structure is the Senate, which acts as a primary gear in controlling and steering political outcomes to benefit hidden political influences without genuine public oversight.
Based on this assessment, the civic network issued four primary demands aimed at pressing for political reforms and dismantling mechanisms that facilitate the monopolization of power, ultimately returning authority to the citizens through legal and constitutional processes.
"The blue regime is no different from the NCPO, and the most crucial mechanism is the Senate."
Yingcheep Chachanont (iLaw)
The emergence of the term blue regime in Thai politics reflects the expansion and consolidation of local political networks and major parties capable of capturing the upper house and bureaucratic apparatus. iLaw's analysis indicates that despite elections and government transitions, pre-designed power structures continue to safeguard the interests of established factions, presenting a major hurdle for democratic forces pushing for constitutional amendments.
Source: Matichon Politics
Found something wrong in this article? Report an issue with this article
Comments
Leave a Comment