The transformative new chapter for the Democrat Party is poised to change the dynamics of this country’s politics, and not for the better, according to political insiders.
The country’s oldest party has gone through its ups and downs, and the down cycle is upon it once again. However, this time, there might not be a rebound coming to its rescue.
Democrats have taken pride in being a party which champions meritocracy and advocates a firm principle where it is willing to be in opposition to keep the government of the day in check.
For a long time, the Democrats have cherished a deep-rooted system of putting experienced veterans in the driver’s seat to steer party policy and navigate it through political tumults.
However, insiders say the internal power structure has built a hierarchy which has walled the party in, insulating itself from needed changes for the party to stay relevant.
Prior to the 2019 general election, the Democrats, perceptive to the wind of change, recruited some young aspirants, but the move was ridiculed by critics as cosmetic.
Party management, according to the critics, still rests firmly in the hands of an old guard refusing changes needed to “young the party up”, and which could succeed in courting a new generation of voters.
The young members hit the campaign trail mostly promoting the old party manifesto, which had little to offer in the way of practical political reform.
The difficulty with introducing new ideas is that the party has been unable to act on one because of being set in its ways, according to critics.
In the party, all roads have led to former prime minister and party patriarch Chuan Leekpai.
With an unblemished track record, Mr Chuan is viewed as the highest authoritative figure in the party, having served twice as prime minister — first from Sept 20, 1992, to July 13, 1995, and again from Nov 9, 1997, to Feb 9, 2001.
Mr Chuan is credited with having previously provided the groundwork for the Democrats to thrive. Party MP numbers rose from 79 in 1992 to 86 in 1995, to 123 in 1997 and 128 in 2001. The tally rose even further after that just before the leadership of Abhisit Vejjajiva, who was also prime minister from Dec 17, 2008 – Aug 5, 2011.
MP numbers jumped to 165 in a 2007 election prior to Mr Abhisit being elected prime minister by parliament at the end of 2008. However, in a general election that ended his premiership in 2011, the number dropped to 159.
Some supporters believe the party was able to woo voters at the time because it came across as being fearless about being in government or in opposition.
Mr Abhisit, reportedly one of Mr Chuan’s proteges, shared Mr Chuan’s stance that the party should not waver when it comes to choosing to be in the opposition.
And the Democrats have performed with flying colours as an opposition party, which counts among its ranks some noted legal experts with exceptional investigative acumen.
They have managed to expose irregularities implicating office holders and cabinet members of various administrations.
However, the party’s strength in scrutiny is at serious risk of being emasculated following the change in party leadership last month. The leadership election was fraught with bitter infighting, which ended with Mr Abhisit announcing his resignation as a party member in the middle of the party assembly, catching many of his colleagues off guard.
Before quitting, he also turned down the chance provided by Mr Chuan to contest for the party leadership against Chalermchai Sri-on, the acting party leader at the time.
A source said Mr Abhisit left because he was unable to come to terms with the direction the new party executives were taking. The new board and Mr Chalermchai, the newly installed leader, have staunchly denied criticism that they were letting the Democrats descend into a government “spare-tyre” party.
The description speaks of the party’s alleged readiness to join the Pheu Thai Party-led government at all costs.
The party’s critics insist they have reason to be suspicious of the intentions of the new Democrat Party executives after it was reported a senior party MP had flown to Hong Kong to meet a figure linked to Pheu Thai.
The meeting took place when prospective coalition parties were jockeying for posts in the cabinet under the government being formed by Pheu Thai.
If the Democrat Party, under new leadership, fails to prove its critics wrong, it stands to lose its most potent weapon — the power to enforce accountability, which would leave the government to go unchecked.
The main opposition Move Forward Party, meanwhile, is accused of cosying up to Pheu Thai in the hope that they might form a two-party government together in case the current coalition experiences a meltdown.
Round one goes to MFP
The House debate on the 3.48-trillion-baht budget bill for the 2024 fiscal year concluded without a hitch, although three opposition MPs from the Thai Sang Thai (TST) Party raised eyebrows by ignoring opposition whips and backing it.
The coalition commanded 314 votes, enough to push the bill through if no one broke ranks.
As predicted, the bill, which was supposed to take effect on Oct 1 last year but was delayed so the new government could find its feet first, passed its first reading with 311 votes in favour, 177 against and four abstentions.
However, the Pheu Thai-led government’s performance during the budget debate underwhelmed many observers.
Cabinet ministers failed to make a compelling case for the spending plan, and their responses to opposition questions and observations were lacklustre. They even attempted to get away with the excuse that the budget proposals were initially prepared by the previous administration and they had limited capacity and time to make adjustments.
Opposition parties, especially the Move Forward Party (MFP), on the other hand, stepped up to the plate and showed themselves to be a force to be reckoned with, according to the observers.
Stithorn Thananithichot, an analyst at King Prajadhipok’s Institute, said the government did not seem to have a clear vision or strategy of its own, and while it claimed it made improvements to address any budget shortcomings made by its predecessor, it did not actually do so.
In his view, the MFP critique of the spending plan was insightful and had a great focus on its details and implications. The party’s MPs demonstrated a keen understanding of the issues they picked for discussion despite many of them being first-time MPs, he said.
Chaithawat: Leading the MFP
He also praised the MFP, under the leadership of Chaithawat Tulathon, for converting the budget proposal from a PDF document to an Excel spreadsheet, which allowed for a more thorough analysis of the data.
“The MFP appeared to be several steps ahead of the government, which was supposed to be on point with numbers. The government relied on agencies to do the work for them, and what we saw was that the ministers know less [about their work] than the opposition MPs,” the analyst said.
According to Mr Stithorn, the solid performance by the MFP in the budget debate was a welcome change and could help the main opposition party win back support from those disappointed with its inaction over the controversy surrounding convicted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
The MFP came under heavy criticism for being soft on the government when it came to Thaksin’s alleged VIP treatment. The party’s silence was believed to be linked to a meeting in Hong Kong between Thaksin and Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, chairman of the Progressive Movement.
The meeting took place prior to the government’s formation and Thaksin’s return to Thailand from self-imposed exile to face justice last year.
Thaksin is a widely respected figure in Pheu Thai and the father of Pheu Thai leader Paetongtarn Shinawatra. Mr Thanathorn is a major supporter of the MFP and formerly led the MFP’s now-dissolved predecessor, the Future Forward Party.
“This time round, the MFP wasn’t afraid to call out the government on its shortcomings in the budget proposal, so it helped the party regain some lost ground,” he said.
As for the Democrat Party, its former leader Jurin Laksnawisit’s performance in the debate earned praise and made headlines. But some observers disapproved of the list-MP’s approach when compared with the MFP’s.
Pichai Rattanadilok Na Phuket, a political science lecturer at the National Institute of Development Administration, said Mr Jurin made some noteworthy points, calling the budget a lame-duck one to reflect its ineffectiveness in stimulating the economy.
But he fell short when attempting to link Thaksin, who has been staying in the Police General Hospital’s premium ward, with alleged misspending by the Corrections Department, he said.
As for Pheu Thai MPs, instead of identifying potential issues and providing an informed critique of the government’s budget plan, they simply showered praise on Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, Ms Paetongtarm and leaders of their own factions, according to the analyst.
He said Pheu Thai’s approach clearly reflects the deep-rooted patronage system in Thai politics.
“It’s in stark contrast to the MFP’s approach that is grounded in using relevant information,” he said.