Thai democracy needs to hear everyone's voice

Vendors and buyers in a Bangkok market on Tuesday. Many young Thais are disproportionately suffering from unemployment and the country's low growth rate. EPA

On the face of it, the ascent of Thailand’s Paetongtarn Shinawatra to the office of prime minister seems to have healed a hitherto insoluble rift in the country’s politics.

From 2001, when Ms Shinawatra’s father – Thaksin Shinawatra – first came to power in a landslide victory, the parties associated with him and his followers topped the polls in every election until last year. But time and again, those governments were edged out by what is usually referred to as a royalist-military-conservative “establishment”. Members of this establishment objected to what they perceived as Mr Thaksin’s irresponsible populism and the challenge he posed to the status quo.

In 2006, Mr Thaksin was overthrown by the armed forces, and later sentenced in absentia to two years in jail for abuse of power – a ruling he disputed. Yingluck, his sister, was elected as prime minister in 2011, but was ousted by the military in 2014 and sentenced to jail in absentia. Another Thaksin-linked prime minister was disqualified from office by the courts for hosting a cooking show on TV.

Now the youthful Ms Paetongtarn has become prime minister, and her father – who ended his self-imposed exile last year – has reportedly been granted a royal pardon. Despite being sentenced to eight years in prison on his return, Mr Thaksin has not spent any time in jail. However, one more Thaksin ally – Srettha Thavisin – was removed as prime minister by the courts just over a week ago for appointing someone who had served prison time as a Cabinet minister. In addition, Mr Thaksin still faces a charge of defaming the monarchy.

But his daughter has become the country’s new leader with the full support of the ruling coalition, consisting of the Thaksinist Pheu Thai party as well as conservative and pro-military factions. She was also officially endorsed by King Maha Vajiralongkorn on Sunday. Mr Thaksin, meanwhile, has brushed off worries about his last remaining charge. The cycle of parties associated with him winning but then being forced from power appears to have been broken.

Just before last May’s general election, I wrote in these pages: “Some kind of accommodation may seem the obvious answer. While Pheu Thai may be more aligned to the progressive Move Forward party, it is the conservatives they need to reassure and whose backing they will need.” Indeed, an arrangement – even if not officially announced – is generally believed to have been made.

That should be welcomed if it helps put an end to the abrupt changes in government that have been too regular a feature of the past century. In addition, large numbers of people have voted for Mr Thaksin and his followers; their voices do not deserve to be excluded from the political process.

The problem is that there is a new party with many supporters that is now deemed unacceptable by the “establishment”. The above-mentioned Move Forward party actually came first in last year’s general election, winning 38 per cent of the vote and 151 seats in Thailand’s 500-member lower house. Pheu Thai had been expected to win but was beaten into second place with 29 per cent.

Move Forward attempted to form a government but could not come up with the numbers. Earlier this month the party was dissolved by the Constitutional Court for violating Thailand’s constitution by proposing an amendment of a law against insulting the monarchy.

Pita Limjaroenrat, its former leader – and a prime ministerial candidate last year – was also banned from politics for 10 years. Move Forward itself was the reincarnation of the Future Forward party, which was dissolved by the Constitutional Court in 2020, and has now been reborn as the People’s Party.

This pattern of being banned and then re-emerging as a new party is exactly what happened to the various vehicles for Mr Thaksin. Although he may have escaped it, Move Forward clearly has not.

Nominally, it’s all about the lese majeste laws, which are both very strict and open to wide interpretation in Thailand. Precisely because of that, it is difficult to be certain what the general population think about them. But in my opinion, it is unlikely that there is little more than a small minority who want to be free to criticise the king. The monarchies of South-East Asia are widely revered in their countries, both as pillars of stability, as guardians of culture and nationhood, and as the apex of historically hierarchical societies. For most, the idea of insulting royalty would be unthinkable, even heretical.

The question in Thailand is whether laws aimed at protecting the king are open to being misused by an establishment. Many analysts believe so. Michael J Montesano, Senior Associate Fellow at the respected ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, wrote last week: “In its determination to amend the law of lese majeste, the Move Forward party in fact sought — far from toppling the royal institution — to give the monarchy a place in its vision for a more open, dynamic and equitable Thailand.”

Move Forward attracted large numbers of young people who are disproportionately suffering from unemployment and Thailand’s low growth rate. Their voices also do not deserve to be excluded from the political process and, as they represent the country’s future, it would be unwise for anyone to do so.

If the deep rift between Mr Thaksin’s faction and the royalist-military-conservative establishment has been ended, that solves one problem. Trying to sweep aside a party that won 38 per cent of the vote last year, however, creates a new one. Banning extremists is one thing but Move Forward and its supporters cannot be fairly characterised in this way. The party was certainly reformist and would have aimed to reduce the influence of the country’s military, but it was not revolutionary.

Sooner or later, another accommodation needs to be sought. Thai democracy needs to be capacious enough to include all mainstream parties. This would be for the good of the country – but also for the good of the monarchy that the establishment claims so earnestly to defend.