When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital MagazineNEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
Ideas

Is Thailand Ready To Be A Bonafide Democracy?

Thai voters spoke in favor of Pita Limjaroenrat's Move Forward party, bringing hopes of in-depth reform of the country's institutions. But that doesn’t guarantee Thailand’s opposition forces will be able to form a government, or that the military will ultimately give way.

Photo of Leader of Thailand's Move Forward Party, Pita Limjaroenrat, celebrating election results in Bangkok on May 14.

Leader of Thailand's Move Forward Party, Pita Limjaroenrat, celebrating election results in Bangkok on May 14.

Greg Raymond

The last time voters headed to the polls in Thailand was in 2019, following five years of a repressive military dictatorship. Thai voters spoke nervously of their democratic aspirations and allowed a military-led government into power.

Now, after four years of a functioning parliamentary democracy, Thai voters have roared. With nearly all votes counted in Sunday’s parliamentary election, they have resoundingly rejected the junta and its successor military-proxy parties.

Thailand’s most progressive party, Move Forward, looks set to gain the most seats in the new parliament. Close behind is the more established and similarly liberal Pheu Thai party of the polarising Shinawatra dynasty.

Following them in third place is Bhumjaithai. This rural-based, more traditional party of patronage politics had recently been the previous government’s coalition partner.


Trailing far behind, in fourth and fifth place, are the two military-proxy parties: Palang Pracharat, headed by former deputy prime minister and army chief Prawit Wongsuwan, and United Thai Nation, headed by current Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, leader of the 2014 coup.

The path towards democracy? 

The result reflects a huge boost in support for Move Forward, which won half as many seats outright in the 2019 election. Now, Move Forward looks likely to take all of but one of the 33 Bangkok seats in parliament, which in the past was seen as the stronghold of Pheu Thai.

It is hard not to wonder whether the strong performance of recently elected Bangkok Governor Chadchart Sittipunt, an independent who has set new standards in transparency, accountability and pure hard work, might have affected the choices of Bangkok voters.

Move Forward has a similar leader in the Harvard-educated former businessman Pita Limjaroenrat – someone who is both well-educated and business-minded.

The formation of a new government trenchantly opposed to the involvement of the military in politics seems logical, potentially ushering in a new progressive, democratic era in Thai politics, with Pita as the new prime minister.

This could be transformational for all of Southeast Asia – especially the countries on the mainland. Democratic institutions have taken a battering in the region in recent years, with Myanmar’s 2021 coup and Cambodia’s turn to increasingly autocratic rule under Hun Sen.

The dramatic decline in support for Thailand’s military-aligned, incumbent government likely reflects a general sentiment among the Thai people that it was simply time for the military to go.

Prayuth has been prime minister since May 2014, when as a military officer he undertook a coup against Yingluck Shinawatra’s democratically elected government. Since then, the Thai people have grown tired of his autocratic style of rule, short temper and mediocre management of the economy.

To speculate further, Thais may feel that the military’s job in overseeing a monarchical transition from Rama IX to Rama X is well and truly now complete.

Photo of a Thai soldier voting in Bangkok, Thailand, on May 14.

A member of the Thai military voting in Bangkok, Thailand, on May 14.

Chaiwat Subprasom/SOPA Images/ZUMA

Opposing forces

But the election result also doesn’t guarantee Thailand’s opposition forces will be able to form a government.

The primary challenge facing the leading parties is the illiberal design of the 2017 constitution. Because it contains a clause allowing 250 unelected, junta-appointed senators to participate in a joint sitting to choose the next prime minister, the military-proxy parties can still, in theory, cobble together a coalition to retain power.

If they received the support of the parties that made up the previous government (Bhumjaithai and the Democrats), they could form a ruling coalition with the roughly 170 seats they all won in total in Sunday’s vote, along with the support of the 250 junta-appointed senators.

If this were to occur, they would be a minority government, unable to pass laws without opposition support, and subject to no-confidence motions. But they might hope they could lure away opposition parliamentarians, using various inducements like ministerial positions, to achieve a majority in the lower house.

The party insists this is not a step towards becoming a republic.

The second challenge for the opposition parties is forming a democratic coalition. Will Pheu Thai accept Pita as prime minister, rather than one its own three candidates, Srettha Thavisin, Paetongtarn Shinawatra or Chaikasem Nitisiri, as the prime ministerial candidate? Would Pheu Thai try to elevate Paetongtarn - the daughter of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra – into the role?

Another major question is whether Pheu Thai would agree to Move Forward’s controversial policy of reforming Thailand’s draconian lese majeste law. Move Forward wants to change the law, which criminalizes insulting the monarchy, so it is less vulnerable to being weaponised as a way to attack political opponents. The party insists this is not a step towards becoming a republic.

The chances of both parties forming a working coalition would be strengthened if they could bring Bhumjaithai into the government. That party has swung between both sides of the political spectrum over the decades.

But this would mean Bhumjaithai accepting the stances of both Move Forward and Pheu Thai to roll back Thailand’s controversial decision last year to decriminalise marijuana. Both parties are proposing to restrict use to medical purposes.

Bhumjaithai’s leader, Anutin Charnvirakul, the current health minister and a cannabis advocate, has insisted that changing Thailand’s cannabis law is non-negotiable for his party.

A judicial coup as an obstacle 

The third challenge facing the opposition parties is perhaps the most worrying. This is the possibility the conservative establishment in Thailand will find a way to invalidate the election result through court action, or a “judicial coup”, as it has become known in Thailand.

This means the joint sitting of parliament should happen faster and a coalition will soon emerge.

There are strong precedents for this, as previous progressive parties have been dissolved through court rulings – a misfortune yet to befall any of the conservative parties.

Pita is currently facing a lawsuit related to his possession of shares in a media company. Meanwhile, Pheu Thai is facing litigation related to allowing “outsiders” to run its affairs.

There is reason to think we may know the election outcome sooner than in 2019. The Electoral Commission seems to have performed more competently in counting votes this time, and does not have to decide how to implement a complicated formula to allocate party-list seats. This means the joint sitting of parliament should happen faster and a coalition will soon emerge.

But only then will we have any certainty the people’s voices have truly been heard.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Geopolitics

Why China Has Bet On A Bigger (And Nastier) BRICS To Challenge The West

The BRICS economies' inclusion of new members like Iran may not make business sense, but it fits with the Sino-Russian strategy of drawing states of the Global South into their orbit in open confrontation with the U.S. and the rest of the West.

Photo of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi

Chinese President Xi Jinping meets with Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi on the sidelines of the 15th BRICS Summit in South Africa

Marcelo Cantelmi

-Analysis-

BUENOS AIRES — Last month's summit in Johannesburg of BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), leading to a decision to expand the club, felt like geopolitical déjà vu. It recalled the 1960s Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) of Third World states that refused, apparently, to take sides in the Cold War, either with the capitalist West or Soviet-led communism.

NAM neutrality was limited, often deceptive, and became obsolete with the fall of the Communist bloc in the late 1980s. The dilemma of what was then called the Third World — now, the Global South — was in the stance it should take toward Russia, the successor state to the Soviet Union that shared few of its traits and goals. Ideologically, the end of communism confused NAM: It didn't know what to do with itself.

That is until now, with an apparent resuscitation of its spirit in BRICS (formed in 2009). Yet the idea of equidistance ends there, as BRICS is led by Russia and communist China and increasingly a part of their open challenge to Western hegemony.

Its founders include Brazil, which has its own agenda, and India. Both states have adopted their own versions of neutrality in the Ukrainian crisis, first in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine,then after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in Feb. 2022.

So far, says Oliver Stuenkel, a professor at Brazil's Getulio Vargas Foundation, the two states have resisted Russia's systematic bid to use an explicitly anti-Western vocabulary in BRICS documents. This, he says, would explain the vague tone of the group's resolutions.

South Africa, the last member to join the group (in 2010), is a lesser power in terms of economy and political clout. But it symbolizes the worldwide spirit the group would come to embody.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital MagazineNEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

The latest