Thailand: Shinawatra’s Popularity Plummets as Authoritarianism Whispers Renewed Appeal
The question isn’t whether Paetongtarn Shinawatra is losing favor in Thailand. The real question is: what does her decline tell us about the fraying social contract at the heart of democratic projects, and the seductive power of narratives that promise order above all else? A new Nida Poll, detailed in the Bangkok Post, reveals a dramatic shift. Opposition leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut is now the preferred prime minister, with his People’s Party enjoying a commanding lead over Shinawatra’s Pheu Thai. It’s a story that echoes far beyond Thailand’s borders, speaking to a global crisis of faith in liberal democracy’s ability to deliver.
The headline is the sharp drop in support for Shinawatra, from 30.9% in March to a mere 9.2% now. The leaked audio clip with Cambodian leader Hun Sen clearly damaged her credibility. But the real shocker is the resurfacing of General Prayut Chan-o-cha, the former coup leader, as the third most popular choice for prime minister. His “honesty, straightforwardness and ability to restore national order,” as some respondents put it, is exactly the kind of coded language that signals a deep yearning for authoritarian solutions. It’s a preference, as Yascha Mounk has written, born not just of ideological conviction, but of perceived democratic failure.
Of the respondents, 31.48% of respondents wanted Mr Natthaphong to be the prime minister today because he is of the young generation, has courage to express opinions and political stances and presents clear and modern ideas.
So, why this whipsawing effect? Part of it, undeniably, is the messy reality of democratic politics. Shinawatra’s stumble is an opportunity for the opposition. The appeal of Natthaphong, who promises a “modern” approach, speaks to a desire for change among the youth, particularly those disillusioned by the economic stagnation of recent years. But it also highlights a deeper instability, a public searching for a leadership capable of addressing the nation’s persistent challenges — the yawning inequality, the entrenched corruption, the deep-seated cultural anxieties that predate this election cycle.
Look at the alternatives on offer: The Bhumjaithai party leader, Anutin Charnvirakul, registers a paltry showing. And nearly 20% of the respondents didn’t see a suitable leader at all. That void — that vacuum — is precisely where authoritarian sentiment takes root. It’s not simply about specific policies; it’s about the perception of competence and control. This echoes what political scientist Francis Fukuyama has warned about the dangers of “vetocracy,” where checks and balances become paralyzing gridlock. But it’s more than just gridlock; it’s the feeling that the system itself is rigged, that the elites are benefiting while everyone else is left behind.
Thailand’s political history is steeped in cycles of democracy and military rule. The 2014 coup led by Prayut, for instance, wasn’t a bolt from the blue; it was the culmination of years of political instability and perceived corruption, fueled by the “red shirt” and “yellow shirt” divisions that paralyzed the country. People crave order, especially when democratic institutions seem unable to deliver basic needs, like economic opportunity and personal safety. The fact that Prayut, now a privy councillor, remains a viable option speaks volumes about the fragility of Thailand’s democratic experiment. This phenomenon isn’t unique to Thailand, either. From Modi’s India to Erdogan’s Turkey, a longing for strong leadership and simplified solutions is reshaping global politics, often exacerbated by social media ecosystems that amplify division and distrust.
Ultimately, the Nida poll isn’t just about one election or one political leader. It’s a flashing warning sign. It underscores the vital importance of democratic institutions delivering tangible results, of building public trust, and of addressing the root causes of societal frustration before those frustrations become fuel for a return to authoritarianism. But it also points to something deeper: the need to re-imagine democracy itself. To move beyond proceduralism and towards a system that actively addresses inequality, fosters social cohesion, and empowers citizens to meaningfully participate in shaping their future. Failing to do so doesn’t just jeopardize Thailand’s future; it risks normalizing a dangerous trend where the allure of strongmen trumps the often-messy, but ultimately more resilient, promise of democracy, leaving us with a world where stability becomes the enemy of justice.
