Recapping the Historic Elections in Thailand
Thailand's political landscape is poised for a historic shift as it awaits the aftermath of the momentous general election held on May 14. The event is being regarded as one of the most consequential political events since the events of the mid-1970s. During that period, a pro-democracy movement successfully overthrew the ruling military regime. In the latest election, the progressive opposition Move Forward Party (MFP), particularly popular with young Thais, emerged victorious, securing 151 seats out of the 500 in the lower House with the highest recorded voter turnout, at 75.22%. The party campaigned on a reformist agenda, seeking to dismantle the dominant military-backed establishment that has controlled the country since the 2014 coup.
Pheu Thai, the populist party associated with former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, experienced a significant setback in the election. Thaksin, who currently resides in self-imposed exile, was predicted victory in 200 districts and the opportunity to lead a new government. However, Pheu Thai ended up in second place, securing only 141 districts. Hoping to form the government now, MFP leader Pita Limjaroenrat formed a coalition with Pheu Thai and six others, totalling a sizable majority of 313 of 500 seats in the House.
While MFP has put forward highly transformative and contentious structural reform proposals within the Thai political landscape, due to Thailand's parliamentary protocols, the formation and assumption of power by a new government will require months and the country is unlikely to select a prime minister until July. Thailand's electoral system encompasses a bicameral legislature, consisting of 500 elected representatives in the lower house, and an upper house comprising 250 appointed senators. The selection process for the prime minister involves a collaborative voting procedure that involves both chambers of the legislature working together. However, Within this specific political framework, the inclusion of military-appointed senators provides an advantageous position to political parties that align with the establishment, as was the case in the 2019 elections. This makes it unclear if MFP will be able to act on its mandate from the voters.
The coalition has signed an agreement listing 23 points they have agreed to accomplish. Among the comprehensive list of 23 policies, key focuses include the restoration of democracy and the drafting of a new constitution, the enactment of a marriage equality act, the reform of the police, military, and justice system, the revival of the economy, and the fight against corruption. Even so, there remains one policy issue that has not yet reached a consensus among the political parties - the amendment of Thailand's lèse majesté law, which imposes severe penalties on individuals who criticise the monarchy, as stated in Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code. For the first time in an election, candidates openly addressed the issue of the lese-majesty law, marking a significant shift catalysed by the 2020 mass protests led by the youth. During these protests, activists courageously demanded limitations on the influence and wealth of the monarchy, even risking imprisonment. Reinforced by the fact that some of their own candidates faced charges under this law, the MFP campaigned on the significant pledge of amending this law. While some coalition parties have expressed their unwillingness to support any changes to the monarchy-related legislation, Pita Limjaroenrat insists that it is only a matter of time before the Move Forward Party presents a proposal for the amendment of this law.
The Thai election result carries significant international geopolitical implications as well. Thailand stands as the sole operational multiparty democracy in mainland Southeast Asia. This sub-region is predominantly governed by autocrats and one-party states, increasingly influenced by the People's Republic of China. Thailand's emphatic vote stands as a clear rejection of authoritarian politics, in favour of a progressive platform that exhibits a markedly Western liberal ideology, perhaps more pronounced than anything witnessed in recent times.
In terms of its ties with the US, as long as there are no military or judicial coups, the U.S.-Thai alliance is expected to maintain its functional continuity. From a strategic perspective too the US would encounter greater ease in collaborating with a democratically elected Thai government which is more likely to adopt a more balanced stance in terms of competition with China, moderating the current government's inclination towards closer ties with Beijing and growing distrust towards Washington. This is corroborated by the fact that Pita, during his initial press conference following the election, expressed his prioritisation of establishing a humanitarian corridor between Thailand and Myanmar and assisting in the implementation of the United States' BURMA Act. This could further impact Thailand’s cooperation with its neighbouring countries and transform geopolitical dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region.
In conclusion, the growing desire amongst the voters for economic reform, imposition of increased accountability on military and civil services and restructuring and strengthening of democratic reforms is evident in the vote outcome, strongly supported by the emergence of young voters advocating for democratic principles. But the future trajectory hinges upon the undisclosed events unfolding within the confines of Bangkok during the next few weeks. Thailand's political landscape finds itself teetering on the edge, poised for a critical turning point. The outcome remains uncertain, leaving us unable to fully predict the direction in which it will ultimately sway.