Thailand: Modi Meeting with Thaksin Fuels Influence Concerns
The image of Thaksin Shinawatra, former Thai prime minister, shaking hands with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is more than just a diplomatic photo op. It’s a snapshot of a deeper tension, a microcosm of the challenges facing Thailand’s current political system, and a powerful reminder of how personalities can shape political realities long after their official tenure ends. The meeting, ostensibly private, has ignited a firestorm in Thailand, as detailed in a recent Bangkok Post report, forcing us to ask uncomfortable questions about informal power, constitutional limits, and the blurring lines between personal connections and official diplomacy.
Mr. Modi’s public framing of the meeting—emphasizing Thaksin’s “extensive experience in governance” and their discussion of bilateral cooperation—poured fuel on an already smoldering fire. While the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maris Sangiampongsa, insists this was a personal encounter unrelated to the Bimstec Summit, the optics, particularly the presence of both national flags in the photo, suggest otherwise. It evokes the trappings of a state visit, lending an air of officiality that belies the government’s claims. The controversy raises crucial questions: What constitutes undue influence? How much power should a former leader, particularly one as divisive as Thaksin, wield behind the scenes, especially when his daughter, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, is the current prime minister?
The heart of the issue lies in the opacity of Thaksin’s role. He holds no official government position, yet his presence looms large. Critics like former MP Thepthai Senpong argue that Thaksin’s activities amount to “extra-constitutional influence,” bypassing official channels and escaping parliamentary scrutiny. The unease isn’t just about Thaksin’s actions, but about the precedent it sets. If a former leader can wield such influence informally, what does it say about the robustness of Thailand’s democratic institutions?
We need to think systematically about the incentives at play here. For Thaksin, these meetings, however framed, reinforce his relevance on the world stage. For the current government, his connections and expertise might be seen as valuable assets, even if his involvement creates political vulnerabilities. But the cost of this quiet arrangement is a creeping erosion of transparency and accountability.
The implications for Thai democracy are multifaceted:
- It weakens the formal channels of diplomacy.
- It raises concerns about conflicts of interest, given the family ties between the former and current prime ministers.
- It fuels public distrust, especially among those who already view Thaksin with suspicion.
“This isn’t simply about a meeting; it’s about a system struggling to reconcile the legacy of a powerful figure with the demands of democratic governance. The longer this ambiguity persists, the deeper the erosion of public trust becomes.”
The government faces a difficult choice: formalize Thaksin’s role, bringing him under the umbrella of official oversight, or actively distance itself from his activities. The current approach—attempting to have it both ways—is unsustainable. It feeds the very instability it seeks to avoid. The shadow of Thaksin will continue to loom large over Thai politics until this fundamental tension is addressed.
