M. A. Hossain,
Thailand has entered yet another familiar chapter in its political drama. On September 5, Anutin Charnvirakul took office as prime minister, ending weeks of turmoil after Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s collapse. His ascent reflects not ideological conviction but tactical mastery — a reshuffling of familiar power players rather than a mandate for change.
For over two decades, Thailand’s politics have been defined by a bitter struggle between the populist legacy of Thaksin Shinawatra and a conservative, military–royalist establishment intent on containing it. Most politicians are forced to pick a side; Anutin has picked both — repeatedly. His career has swung from alliances with Thaksin, to retreat after the 2006 coup, to leadership of the Bhumjaithai Party, and finally to kingmaker under Prayuth Chan-ocha. By 2023, he sat comfortably in a coalition led by Thaksin’s own party. Now, following scandal, he holds the top post.
The mechanics of his rise were textbook Thai politics. A leaked phone call by Paetongtarn sparked public anger, judicial intervention, and coalition collapse. Anutin withdrew his party, resigned from the cabinet, and emerged as the only candidate acceptable across rival factions. No fresh vision, no public referendum — just a new deal in an old system.
Thailand’s volatility is unique in its blend of democracy, military veto power, and monarchy. The armed forces retain decisive influence, sometimes overt through coups, often quiet through institutional leverage. The recent border tensions with Cambodia only reinforced military autonomy. Civilian supremacy remains aspirational; generals still shape national security while elected leaders manage daily governance. That imbalance has left civilian cabinets fragile, cautious, and easily replaced, as Thailand’s modern history has shown repeatedly.
Economically, political fragility risks slowing growth and undermining investor confidence. Budget delays, coalition bargaining, and policy drift threaten major trade negotiations, particularly with partners like the United States and key ASEAN allies. Tourism, a lifeline of the Thai economy, suffers each time political uncertainty dominates headlines. The state appears trapped in tactical survival rather than strategic development, while its regional competitors press ahead with long-term plans.
Socially, the Shinawatra dynasty’s decline may shift the political center, but not resolve the enduring divide between rural populism and urban conservatism. The ideological tension remains alive in universities, rural provinces, and Bangkok’s streets. Mass protests remain the unpredictable variable: capable of forcing reform only if they fracture military unity — a high bar in Thailand’s entrenched order. Without structural reform, public frustration risks turning cyclical, feeding distrust of every new administration.
Anutin’s own record offers no sign of transformational intent. His cannabis liberalization was bold but poorly managed; his COVID-19 response competent yet uneven. Allegations of electoral manipulation and patronage politics linger. He is a dealmaker, not a reformer — a man shaped by the system and invested in its continuity.
Thailand thus stands at a paradox: a nation yearning for both stability and change, yet governed by a system that trades vision for balance. Anutin may preserve calm, but calm is not consensus — and in a politics built on bargains rather than durable institutions, the next crisis is always waiting.
M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com
This article published at :
1. The Korea Times, S Korea : 16 Sep, 25
No comments:
Post a Comment