James W. Pfister: Thailand’s May election and U.S. policy

The Thai kingdom goes back to its founding at Sukhot’ai in 1238 A.D., which was to become “…a mighty state under Rama Khamheng in the latter half of the century.” (D.G.E. Hall, "A History of South-East Asia," 1981). They settled in the Chao Praya River basin in mainland Southeast Asia. Over its history, Thailand has been largely stable and prosperous, with its major defeat being the destruction of its capital at Ayut’ia in April 1767 by the Burmese. The Thai capital then moved south to its present location at Bangkok, and began the Chakri Dynasty in 1782, about the time of the beginning of the United States after its independence. Modern American and Thai governments thus began about the same time. We based our legitimacy on the Constitution; the Thai on the Chakri Dynasty.

The Thai have recently selected a civilian prime minister, Srettha Thavisin, age 60, of the Pheu Thai party, in what appears to have been a compromise between the conservative establishment of the king and military and the liberal forces in an elected lower parliament. This is a step toward more democracy since the last military coup. After that coup, the military government drafted the Constitution of 2017. This constitution was weighted to favor the military: there is a 250-member appointed senate controlled by the military. This is in addition to a 500-member lower parliament that was elected last May 14, 2023.

Why did it take about three months to form a government? Enter Pita Limjaroenrat, a Harvard and MIT-educated 42-year-old leader of the leftist Move Forward party. He had radical ideas: limiting the king’s prerogatives and limiting the military’s role in politics. This was a threat to the conservative establishment. The problem was that Move Forward won the May election! With 75% of the people voting, Move Forward came in first. The pro-democracy Pheu Thai party, the party of the new prime minister, Mr. Srettha, came in second. This election of two pro-democracy parties was a sign that many people wanted more democratic and less military and king influence in Thai politics.

Why was Pita not chosen prime minister since his party won the election? He was unacceptable to the military. Recall the constitution has a senate controlled by the military. The senate combines with the elected lower parliament to choose a prime minister. Pita wanted too much change. Pavin Chachavalpongpun (herein Pavin), of Kyoto University’s Center for Southeast Asian Studies, has written:

“Working through the parliamentary system, this old guard has maneuvered to bloc Move Forward and co-opt Pheu Thai … Move Forward represented too much change to Thailand’s stifling political culture and simply could not be allowed to take power.” (Pavin, “Everybody Won in Thailand’s Elections Except the Voters,” The New York Times, Aug. 2, 2023).

Srettha’s Pheu Thai party is a derivative of the party of the popular Thaksin Shinawatra, age 74, elected prime minister in 2001. He was ousted in a military coup in 2006 because “his popularity threatened to eclipse that of King Bhumibol…” (Pavin, Ibid.). Thaksin went into exile and was recently allowed to return to Thailand in a deal between the former opponents, Pheu Thai and the military.

In the vicissitudes of Thai politics, Srettha formed a coalition with military-backed politicians to achieve enough support to form a government. This made Move Forward, the election winner, an opposition party! The Srettha-Pheu Thai coalition is made up of ideological opponents, but ideological purity is not required in Thai political culture. According to Pavin, the "struggle for influence … between the conservative establishment and Mr. Thaksin’s supporters and relatives has dominated Thai politics for more than two decades.” (Pavin, Ibid.). The deal between the military and Pheu Thai opponents allowed for the maintenance of the status quo stability by keeping the radical Move Forward party out.

The modern Thai political system goes back to the early years of our own. The Thai are delicately balanced and stable; the U.S. should leave them alone in its democratic and human rights crusade. They do seem to be influenced by the U.S., though: the Thai judiciary has begun legal action against the popular rebel Mr. Pita over media shares he inherited. These charges seem, if I may say, “trumped-up.”

James W. Pfister, J.D. University of Toledo, Ph.D. University of Michigan (political science), retired after 46 years in the Political Science Department at Eastern Michigan University. He lives at Devils Lake and can be reached at jpfister@emich.edu.

This article originally appeared on The Daily Telegram: James Pfister: Thailand’s May election and U.S. policy