Thailand’s 2019 election was seen from the beginning to be a ritual to transform a military junta into an elected government. This qualitative article draws on the critical analysis of theories in authoritarianism and electoral integrity to shed light on the concept of competitive authoritarianism. The article, utilizing empirical data and historical narratives, illustrates Thailand’s legal and political environment governing this election. The electoral results and post-election political party landscape reveal unintended consequences in manipulating political institutions. Although the newly introduced electoral system and institutional manipulations allowed the military co-opted Palang Pracharat party to select the prime minister even without controlling a majority in the House of Representatives, as projected, the establishment was inadvertently left with two robust opposition parties, namely the old Pheu Thai and the new-born Future Forward parties. The former represents the strongest political machine in Thailand, which has won five consecutive elections, while the latter symbolizes a new divide in Thai politics, armed with the power of social media, and poses a bigger threat to the military establishment. Remarkably, the electoral result not only pointed to a continued polarization, dominated by the cleavages of ultraconservative versus progressive and an urban-rural, rich-poor cleavage, but also a new division between older and younger generations. This article maintains that although Thailand’s civil-military government might be deposed in the future due to several challenges facing them, the undemocratic political structure of military electoral co-optation polity remains ingrained on account of the way that the 2017 Constitution was crafted.
This paper recounts the development of political science in Thailand and identifies the subfields and approaches used in political science studies. The paper argues that the orientation of political science has been a product of the historical process of semi-colonialism and Thailand's pattern of development based on internal colonization with a high degree of centralization in Bangkok in all dimensions, whether economic, political, or cultural. Moreover, the alternation between varying forms of military rule and prolonged colour-coded politics have been major factors influencing the debates and the substance of political science in the country which has also brought about the politicization of Thai academics. The paper seeks to assess the current situation of and challenges to the study of political science in Thailand. IntroductionThis paper has two goals. It first gives an account of the setting and evolution of political studies in Thailand. It examines university course structures and subject matter published in the two foremost political science journals to give an overview of the sub-fields of and the approaches to political science in Thailand. Then the paper proceeds to identify three factors affecting the development of political science in Thailand, namely the historical background, the political regime, and conflicting perceptions and enduring political disputes. Much of the analysis focuses on opposing standpoints and the attempts to influence, shape, and construct political discourse and the political science discipline in Thailand.
Although Thaksin Shinawatra’s three political parties, together called “the TSP” in this article, overwhelmingly won all four elections between 2001 and 2011, explaining their dominance is a challenge. Nevertheless, this article attempts to shed some light on how the TSP politicized already latent cleavages, namely the basic split between the lower-middle class and the rural poor versus mostly Sino-Thai Bangkokians and the urban middle class, and made them even more significant. After the TSP was dissolved by court order following the 2006 military coup, these deep divides transformed into two major cleavages, namely the dominating center-local dimension which pits Bangkokian and the urban pole against the provincial pole and the royalist and traditional establishment pole against pro-populist politicians. The TSP’s ability to incorporate certain demands into its agendas pointed to its power to manipulate these cleavages. At the same time, its capacity to organize and mobilize certain groups deepened those divisions and allowed the party to win elections without having to institutionalize the party. The TSP’s failure to develop a strong organizational structure was partly a result of frequent coups d’etat as well as its centralized style of leadership. The TSP’s reach across groups spanning these two cleavages would allow the TSP to win the upcoming election without having to embrace the dynamics of change in voters’ preferences. However, the precariously balanced relationship between the TSP and its supporters has to be carefully maintained, or the existing social cleavages may be increasingly difficult to sustain if new political parties emerge.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.