Thailand’s Cronyism Crisis: Does Expertise Excuse Ethical Breaches?
Here’s a comfortable fiction we tell ourselves: that policy debates are won on the merits. That the best ideas rise to the top. But then you see something like this: a politician, accused of ethical breaches, defends their actions as being in the public good. The details are different — Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra, a hefty US tariff — but the underlying dynamic isn’t a bug of democracy; it’s a feature: Power struggles aren’t just about competing ideas, but about access to power itself, and the murky space between what is legal and what is right. Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, a political activist, is urging the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to investigate Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira for inviting the former prime minister, Thaksin, to a policy advisory meeting. According to a Bangkok Post report, the question is whether this constitutes a breach of ethics, as Thaksin holds no formal government position.
Pichai argues Thaksin’s “extensive experience and expertise in economic matters” justify the invitation. Supporters point to the urgency of responding to President Trump’s proposed 36% tariff on Thai goods. But this isn’t just about a tariff, or even just about Thailand. It’s about the perception of undue influence, the blurring of lines between the official and the unofficial, and the subtle erosion of public trust that occurs when the rules appear to bend for those in power. This is why, according to Ruangkrai, “Mr. Pichai’s actions could be regarded as degrading the image and dignity of his role as minister, potentially affecting public trust in the cabinet.”
Allowing such conduct to go unchecked may set precedence for other cabinet members to invite external individuals to participate in sensitive discussions without legal justification.
The question, then, isn’t merely about Thaksin’s participation in a single meeting. It’s about the norms that govern political behavior, and the unspoken bargain at the heart of any functioning democracy. Are we creating a system where access and influence are determined by personal connections rather than established procedures? And even more fundamentally, are we creating a system where expertise is deployed as a shield for preferential treatment? As political scientist Francis Fukuyama has argued, a strong state requires not just capacity, but also legitimacy, and legitimacy is predicated on the belief that the rules apply equally to everyone. These alleged breaches may fuel perceptions of cronyism and threaten the state’s very legitimacy, especially when, as we’ll see, past is so deeply intertwined with present.
Consider the historical context. Thailand has a long history of political upheaval and military coups; it’s a pendulum swinging between civilian rule and military intervention. Between 1932 and 2014, the country experienced twelve successful military coups, each one ostensibly justified as a necessary corrective to corruption or instability. A weak institutional framework risks backsliding to that instability. Thaksin himself is a controversial figure, having been ousted in a coup in 2006 and living in self-imposed exile for years before returning to Thailand in 2023. His continued influence, even without an official role, raises questions about who truly holds the levers of power. The very memory of these past power grabs casts a long shadow, fueling anxieties that these are not simply decisions made for policy, but instead reflect long running rivalries in Thai politics, a game played not by the rules everyone sees, but by unspoken codes of conduct.
This entire situation speaks to a larger, more systemic problem. Many countries struggle to establish transparent and equitable systems of governance that are open to diverse perspectives without descending into cronyism. And beneath that struggle lies an even deeper tension: the demand for quick, decisive action in the face of immediate crises often clashes directly with the slower, more deliberate processes of institutional governance. Inviting an experienced former leader to the table in a time of economic crisis seems beneficial; the problem arises when this former leader is accused of crimes and using his personal relationships to insert himself into the government in a way that undermines its perceived fairness. It exposes the fallacy that pragmatism and principle are always aligned.
What’s happening in Thailand is a microcosm of a global struggle to balance expertise with ethics, pragmatism with principle. It’s a reminder that even the most well-intentioned efforts to solve pressing problems can inadvertently reinforce existing power structures and erode public trust. The Thaksin situation, however it resolves, reveals a broader problem: the temptation to circumvent formal channels, to prioritize personal relationships over institutional integrity, and to justify it all in the name of expediency. That may lead to a short-term fix, but, in the long run, it corrodes the very foundations of a stable, democratic society, replacing the hard-won authority of institutions with the shifting sands of personal influence. And that’s a bargain no society can ultimately afford.
