Show

Seminar on “How Factions Lost but Patronage Politics Persists: Lessons from Thailand’s 2023 General Elections”

Dr Napon Jatusripitak, Visiting Fellow, ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, and Dr Punchada Sirivunnabood, Associate Professor, Mahidol University, examined the nature and scope of the shifts in Thai politics that led to the stunning victory of the Move Forward Party in the 2023 general elections.

THAILAND STUDIES PROGRAMME HYBRID SEMINAR

6 July 2023, Thursday – The seminar explored the scope of the shifts in Thailand’s 2023 general election and possible explanations for the stunning victory of the Move Forward Party (MFP). Two esteemed experts on Thai politics shared on-the-ground fieldwork and their analyses of factional politics, described the outcomes and the implications for electoral politics in the future, and identified trends in voting patterns and campaign strategies. The hybrid seminar attracted 49 attendees. Key points from the discussion are summarised below:

Left to right: Dr Ian Storey (moderator) with speakers Dr Napon Jatusripitak and Dr Punchada Sirivunnabood. (Credit: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute)
  • Speakers shared preliminary findings from analysing and comparing the recent 2023 general election with the 2019 general election.
  • The opposition parties secured the majority of seats, but the projected front-runner, the Pheu Thai Party aligned with former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, did not emerge as the top contender. Instead, the progressive Move Forward Party (MFP) achieved a surprising victory, potentially indicating a preference for disruptive change and potentially signalling support for structural reforms concerning traditional institutions.
  • Move Forward Party (MFP) seized victory with 151 seats, followed by Pheu Thai with 141 seats. Parties linked to military generals involved in the 2014 coup suffered significant losses.
  • Thailand remains a multi-party system, with a lack of a clear-cut two-party system. Political parties have been slow to adjust to changes in electoral rules, indicating diversity in social cleavages, ideologies, policies, and strategies.
  • In the North, the decline of support for the Palang Pracharath Party was observed, but the party’s factions consolidated in certain provinces. The Move Forward Party managed to challenge Pheu Thai’s dominance in the region, as seen in Chiang Mai.
  • The Northeast showed increased competition, with Bhumjaithai emerging as a key challenger to Pheu Thai, and the MFP also contesting Pheu Thai’s support base in the North. Khon Kaen was highlighted as an example of the MFP’s campaign success as MFP was undermining support for Pheu Thai among younger demographics and urban dwellers through its campaign focused on social media and social movements.
  • Central Thailand experienced a significant shift, with the Move Forward Party winning overwhelmingly in Bangkok and nearby provinces challenging long-established political dynasties.
  • The South remained a conservative stronghold, but the dominance of the Democrat Party had declined, hence paving the way for other parties like Bhumjaithai and United Thai Nation. The South remained divided between Democrat Party, United Thai Nation Party and Bhumjaithai for now.
  • The two-ballot system in Thailand allows for strategic voting and ballot splitting, where voters may choose different candidates and parties on the constituency and party list ballots. This led to variations in support for parties between constituency and party list votes.
  • The Move Forward Party performed exceptionally well as there is a correlation observed between support for candidates and support for the party. However, there were variations in support for parties like Bhumjaithai and United Thai Nation between constituency and party list votes. Only four parties managed to secure the highest number of party-list votes in each constituency. These are the Move Forward, Pheu Thai, United Thai Nation, and Prachachart.
  • Campaign strategies differ among parties and candidates, with some emphasizing party labels and others relying on local networks and personal reputation. Candidates affiliated with traditional tactics of patronage politics, particularly associated with the Palang Pracharath Party, have been successful in some cases.
  • Urban-rural divide still plays a significant role in shaping campaign strategies and electoral dynamics, but there are larger shifts in social cleavages and electoral dynamics that make these divisions more complex.
  • The use of social networks and digital platforms played a significant role in the election, with the Move Forward Party effectively utilizing social media, while pro-military parties struggled to do so.
  • Various factions and families in different provinces lost seats to the Move Forward Party, indicating their declining influence. This is the first time in two decades that Pheu Thai did not come up on top in the general election as well as the first time that the military has split political parties participated in the election rather than one since General Prayut has fallen out of favour with politicians within PPRP.
  • MFP even won in District 7 Nakhon Chaisri and Dusit where 80 percent of the population is military officers and their families. In Samut Prakan, MFP also came out on top over Asawaheme family. In Chonburi, MFP also picked up victory because of the split between Khunplum and Suchart Chomklin families.
  • In the North and Northeast, MFP won in most urban constituencies even though Pheu Thai retained their seats in more rural districts away from the city centres.
  • Democrat Party will most likely return to a regional political party from national party since Democrat lost in Bangkok as well as in the south where Democrat Party’s dominance is being contested.
  • In Thai politics, the patronage system and the factions will likely survive as long as the voters have to rely on politicians for their district needs to be fulfilled. Rather than drafting legislation, politicians work with their constituents in the districts.
  • Politicians do not want to be in the opposition coalition, so they have to ensure to be in the government coalition by being flexible with their party affiliation.

Questions posed to the speakers by the audience included the disparities in voting patterns between Bangkok and other provinces in Thailand, the prevalence of misinformation and disinformation during the election, the likelihood of violent protests in the event that the PM candidate of the Move Forward Party (MFP) is not chosen to lead the coalition government, the process of electing the new PM, General Prayut’s future, the rationale of switching to party-list voting system, the palace’s perception of MFP, the strength of the MFP and Pheu Thai alliance, the economic challenges facing Thailand following the selection of a new PM, and specific inquiries regarding the distribution of ministerial positions.