Thailand’s General Elections and Fears about Continuing Political Instability

In Thailand’s July 3 general elections, 42 parties will compete for 500 seats in the Parliament’s lower house and vie for the support of 47 million eligible voters. The ruling Democrat Party and the main opposition Puea Thai Party are the primary contenders, but other smaller parties are contesting as well. No party is expected to win a majority of the parliamentary seats, which means that smaller parties will have to join one of the main parties to form a coalition government.

In the wake of last year’s violent demonstrations, the upcoming elections come at a critical juncture and will help shape the future of Thailand. The appointment of Yingluck Shinawatra, sister of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, to lead the main opposition party suggests that the elections are a continuation of the five-year political tussle that has engulfed Thailand since Thaksin’s ouster in a military coup in 2006. Deep political divisions among voters and behind-the-scenes power struggles, with some fearing another coup, further dampen Thai domestic confidence in the country’s electoral system and the country’s future political stability. The outcome of the elections and, perhaps more importantly, the reactions of the voters to the results will have long-term repercussions in shaping the political landscape in Thailand.

Q1: Who are the key actors in the upcoming elections?

A1: Abhisit Vejjajiva is the current prime minister and leader of the Democrat Party, which has formed the backbone of the ruling coalition government since December 2008. Born in England and educated at Oxford, Abhisit’s background is distinctly upper class. Opposition to his government prompted major protests in April and May 2010 that left more than 90 people dead. The Democrats have a large following in Bangkok and the south and are popular with urban middle-class voters. Many view the party as the most adept at handling the Thai economy. However, the Democrats are struggling to gain support from the rural poor, who make up the majority of Thai voters. The party has adopted a series of populist programs to broaden its support.

Yingluck Shinawatra, the youngest sister of former prime minister Thaksin, is leader of the Puea Thai Party (For Thai Party) and draws big crowds wherever she goes. A 44-year-old telegenic businesswoman who never previously ran for government office, Yingluck and her party are leading in most preelection opinion polls. If elected, she will be Thailand’s first female prime minister. The Puea Thai Party is the latest incarnation (after the People’s Power Party) of the Thai Rak Thai (Thai Love Thai) Party, which was led by Thaksin until he was ousted nearly five years ago. The party has a large following in the northeastern region of Thailand but, according to recent polls, has also gained support in Bangkok. However, most opinion polls find a large number of undecided voters, whose ballots could tip the balance in favor of the either Puea Thai or the Democrats—or require that the party with a plurality form a coalition government by aligning with some smaller parties.

Q2: What are the political platforms of the key parties, and how are they different from one another?


A2: Similar to its predecessors, the Puea Thai Party has proposed a series of populist measures that include increasing the minimum wage and tourism earnings, promoting small and medium-size enterprises, and cutting the interest rates on loans. It has also suggested turning the three southern Muslim-majority provinces into a special administrative zone. There is widespread speculation that the party, if it wins a majority, will offer amnesty to Thaksin, which would allow him to return to Thailand, although the party said on June 24 that it has not adopted such a policy. (Thaksin has been living abroad since 2008 to avoid imprisonment on corruption and terrorism charges. He denies these charges).

Not to be outdone in populist proposals, the Democrat Party’s platform includes an income guarantee arrangement for farmers, a 25 percent minimum wage increase, a crackdown on narcotic drugs, and a provision granting educational loans to 250,000 university students. Many economists, however, have raised questions about how Thailand will be able to afford paying for the free-spending populist programs both parties have promised voters.

Q3: What is the nature of the coming elections? How are they different from previous ones?

A3: In the wake of last year’s antigovernment demonstrations, which left 91 people dead, the upcoming elections are taking place in a deeply polarized nation, in which many have little faith that political stability will emerge after the ballots are counted. Tensions are running high between pro- and anti-Thaksin forces, and it is quite possible that whichever side loses will refuse to accept the results and seek to thwart the winners from taking power or holding it for long. The strong feeling on both sides makes it hard to predict that the election will heal the sharp political differences and bring an end to violence.

Many Thais fear another military intervention if Puea Thai wins, particularly after Army Chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha spoke out against the party and advised Thais to vote for “good people.” But the general said on June 30 that the military would not stage a coup even if Puea Thai wins the elections. Concerns about royal succession raise further anxiety as 83-year-old King Bhumibol Adulyadej has been ill and in the hospital for the past two years, and Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, 58, does not have as much respect from the Thai public.

Q4: What are the implications of the election results for the United States?

A4: As Southeast Asia’s second-largest economy and a major player in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and a longstanding ally of the United States, Thailand cannot be ignored.

Anxiety over potential instability has decreased foreign investor confidence in the Thai economy. This anxiety is reflected in the withdrawal by foreign investors of more than $1 billion from the Thai stock market since Yingluck was elected leader of the Puea Thai Party in May. Foreign banks such as Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse have downgraded the country’s investment potential, citing election uncertainty as one of the major variables.

Last year’s violence had minimal impact on the country’s economic growth. Long-term investors like Ford and Coca-Cola, which have factories in Thailand, have continued to invest in the country despite the political uncertainty.

The United States will need to have an unambiguous policy opposing military intervention in the democratic process if Puea Thai wins the elections. The 2006 coup not only disrupted Thailand’s economy, but it delayed progress in healing the political rifts in the country.

Murray Hiebert is a senior fellow and deputy director of the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Rizal Siddik is an intern with the CSIS Southeast Asia Program.


Critical Questions is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2011 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Murray Hiebert and Rizal Siddik