Social divisions, party support, and the changes in the Thai party system since 2001

Abstract

This article investigates the interactions of socioeconomic characteristics and electoral outcomes at the constituency level to demonstrate the change in the Thai party system since 2001. Probing the effects of the agricultural population and income inequality on electoral outcomes in the proportional representation (PR) tier, this article finds that the Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT) and the Democrat Party (DP) attracted voters with opposite social standings. While voters residing in the provinces with substantial agrarian populations tended to vote more for the TRT than the DP, constituencies with highly unequal income distribution were more likely to be DP supporters. The findings provide evidence against alternative explanations, including regionalism and support for a charismatic leader, for the TRT’s consecutive victories. Due to the convergence between social divisions and party support, the Thai party system has become stable and strong enough to resist short-term interventions, implying that the future electoral outcomes will likely be similar.

Who votes for virtue? Religion and party choice in Thailand’s 2019 election

“…The effects of religious belonging, belief and behaviour on party choice are compared with the effects of control variables highlighted by the extant literature on electoral behaviour in Thailand. The first control variable is the degree of urbanization (Huang and Thananithichot 2018; Laothamatas, 1996; Thananithichot 2012). This variable is classified as a 4-point scale variable identifying the type of area in which respondents live: 0 for village; 1 for small or middle-sized town; 2 for suburb of large town or city; and 3 for a city or metropolitan area.…”

“…Studies of electoral behaviour of Muslims and Buddhists in Southern Thailand have argued that religious identity is not a salient factor (Albritton 2010;Albritton et al, 1996). Recent studies of parties and voting behaviour in Thailand contain no mention of 'religion', 'Buddhism', or 'Islam' (Hicken 2013;Huang and Thananithichot 2018;Ockey 2005). Studies of the 2019 election, widely characterized as neither free nor fair, have similarly highlighted the enduring centrality of factionalism, clientelism and material interests, thus underscoring the limited salience of social cleavages in Thai electoral politics today (Ricks 2019b;Selway 2020).…”

Religion, political parties, and Thailand’s 2019 election: Cosmopolitan royalism and its rivals

“…In the 2011 election, for instance, the For Heaven and Earth Party, closely associated with Santi Asoke, ran a 'Vote No' campaign with the slogan 'Don't let animals into parliament' (Jones 2014). These are, however, such marginal phenomena that most recent studies of the Thai political party system and of Thai voting behaviour contain no mention of 'religion', 'Buddhism', or 'Islam' (representative examples include Ockey 2005, Hicken 2013, and Huang and Stithorn 2018. In light of this overwhelming consensus, it would have been surprising indeed if political parties in the 2019 election had differentiated themselves from their rivals by adopting distinctive religious positions in terms of rhetoric or policy.…”

Determinants of political participation in Thailand: An analysis of survey data (2002–2014)

“…2 There are fewer works on the issue of political participation and engagement in Thai politics. More and more works focus on political conflicts and their contributing factors (Bureekul & Thananithichot, 2012;Satidporn & Thananithichot, 2019;Sinpeng and Kuhonta, 2012), the quality of democracy (Ferrara, 2011;Kuhonta & Sinpeng, 2014), social division (Huang & Thananithichot, 2018), or the patterns of relationship between local and national politics in Thailand (Ockey, 2017).…”