For our April blog, we had planned to provide an analysis of the new Thai government elected to office in the polls on March 24. Nearly a month after the elections, however, the results are confusing, contested and uncertain. Readers living in Thailand have seen daily news reports detailing the mess. For others we would like to provide a short description of the election outcome problems before we look at the historical precedents and the challenges ahead.
The good news
The election was carried out in a relatively peaceful and orderly manner, with little of the violence that has plagued past polls. The ideological conflicts of the past appear to have diminished with the various parties proposing policies that do not differ greatly.
Coup leader Gen. Prayut Cha-O-Cha sought to portray a softer image during the campaign.
Beyond the officially announced policies, however, the voters were given choices among the top four parties with clearly different personalities, leaders and histories.
The Palang Pracha Rath Party (PPRP) billed itself the party of stability and order. It proposed the coup leader and current prime minister Prayut Chan-O-Cha as its candidate to head the government.
The Pheu Thai Party (PTP) represented the legacy of two ousted prime ministers, Thaksin and Yingluck Shinawatra. It campaigned on its history of providing benefits to the underprivileged.
Thailand’s oldest party, the Democrat Party, offered a conservative middle course, but remained tainted by the violence that erupted during its rule in 2010.
Campaign poster for the Future Forward Party
A new party, the Future Forward Party (FFP) called for a reduction in military budgets and influence in a social media campaign headed by a photogenic young billionaire.
In general, the voters appeared to welcome the opportunity to exercise their voting rights after nearly eight years without elections. The final turnout was close to 75%.
The bad news
Despite the peaceful campaign and polling, there were numerous alleged campaign violations, poll-booth irregularities and suspect vote-counting that cast doubt on the fairness of the outcome. There were charges that some of the constituencies were gerrymandered to favor the PPRP. A party closely allied with the PTP was dissolved at the last moment due to charges it had violated the election law by nominating a member of the royal family as a candidate. An extraordinary 6 percent of the ballots were declared invalid.
The Election Commission, appointed under the military-installed government, admitted a number of mistakes and claimed some of its polling stations were “hacked.” The Commission faces legal challenges and a popular petition demanding the commissioners be impeached or tried for corruption. It has declined to announce the official results, but must do so by May 9. Even then there will be some uncertainty.
“There are cases to investigate, like allegations of vote-buying. Those who are elected could be disqualified and we should run a second election for them,” the secretary general of Election Commission, Jarungwit Phumma, told reporters. “We can allocate proportional party list seats only after we have a concrete constituency list.”
Already, the Commission has decided to organize new voting at six polling stations and to recount the ballots in two of the constituency races.
The vote totals
One thing is clear: no one party gained a majority. Preliminary results announced five days after the polls indicate PTP won 137 of the 350 constituency seats in the 500-strong lower chamber of parliament, winning 7.9 million votes. The military-backed PPRP took 97 seats, but won 8.4 million votes. The Democrat Party suffered a stunning setback, winning only 33 constituency seats. Party leader, former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajivat, resigned to take responsibility. The big surprise was that the fledgling FFP won 30 races and more than 6.2 million votes.
The new system of allocating additional “proportional party-list” seats based on the proportion of the national votes won, is expected to give PPRP 19 more seats and FFP 50 more seats. The PTP will not get any additional seats. However, there is controversy over the method of allocating the proportional seats. The Election Commission has asked the Constitutional Court to rule on its proposed methodology, but it is unclear that the court will decide it has jurisdiction.
Wooing the smaller parties
Despite the uncertainty, the two leading parties, the PPRP and the PTP have both claimed the right to make the first attempt at forming a government. PPRP insists that it won more votes nation-wide than any other party, giving it that right. PTP won fewer votes, but won more constituency seats than any other party. In Thailand’s parliamentary system, that would normally give PTP the right to form the government. Both parties are actively wooing the smaller parties to join them.
Bolstered by the support of the FFP and several other so-called “democratic parties,” the PTP claims enough MPs have agreed to join it in a coalition that will have slightly more than the 250 votes needed for a majority in the lower house. The PPP, however, has the military behind it and is tipped to make other parties offers they cannot refuse. It’s great advantage is in the appointed 250-seat upper house or Senate.
The Senate wildcard
The constitution, written under the military government set up after the 2014 coup d’état, stipulates that the appointed Senators have the right to join in the voting for prime minister until 2023. Therefore a total of 376 votes is needed to elect the prime minister. Since six top military leaders are automatically given seats in the Senate, 194 are directly appointed by the junta and the rest are appointed under a process managed by the current government, it is assumed that most if not all of the 250 Senators will vote for Prime Minister Prayut.
Problems going forward
So, despite having a majority of the lower house, the PTP cannot elect a prime minister without a substantial number of votes from the Senate. Even if they somehow got those votes, the power of the Senate to oversee the government would make it difficult for the civilian parties to govern. A PTP-led government also would be constrained by the power of the higher courts, the ombudsman, the counter corruption agency and other institutions led by officials appointed by the junta.
It is likely, therefore, that Prayut, who did not run for a parliament seat, will head the next government. The problem he faces is that his PPRP and their allies will struggle to find enough votes in the lower house to pass legislation and defeat no-confidence motions. The power to rule by decree, which Prayut wielded since the coup, will end once the new government takes office. It is unclear how he will be able to govern effectively.
If Prime Minister Prayut does stay in office, what could he learn from Thailand’s political history?
We will look at that question in our next blog.