Thailand’s Soft Power Push: Can Culture Outrun Political Instability?
The Thai government’s “Splash — Soft Power Forum 2025” isn’t just a conference; it’s a carefully curated simulation of national optimism, a high-gloss projection of Thailand as the next cultural superpower. But the real question isn’t whether Thailand can churn out hit songs and trendy fashion. It’s whether soft power, in its essence a bottom-up phenomenon of cultural attraction, can be convincingly engineered from the top down, especially by a state whose political foundations are arguably more shifting sands than bedrock. Is this an investment in national branding, or an attempt to paper over fundamental cracks?
The symbolism is thick. Suspended Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, now Culture Minister, launching the forum with a speech on “Thailand Rising” underscores the Shinawatra family’s enduring, almost gravitational pull on Thai politics. “Bangkok Post” reports on the event as “a rare opportunity to learn from national leaders”. The presence of her father, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and current Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, only reinforces this dynastic echo. But this raises a deeper question: In a nation where political power often flows through families, how easily can “soft power” be divorced from the hard realities of influence and access?
The government’s focus on creative industries as a driver of “sustainable economic growth” sounds less like a strategy and more like a hope — a desire to bypass more fundamental reforms. Thailand has been down this road before. The “Creative Thailand” initiative in the 2000s sought to leverage cultural assets for economic gain, but ran headfirst into the country’s deep political divisions. Joseph Nye, who coined the term “soft power,” has consistently argued that cultural influence is most potent when it reflects authentic societal values, not contrived narratives. This authenticity can’t be legislated; it has to emerge.
“This is a rare opportunity to learn from national leaders and leading experts while gaining inspiration to turn cultural value into economic power,”
Consider the focus on OTOP (One Tambon One Product) initiatives, championed by Thaksin Shinawatra in his planned address. OTOP, intended to empower grassroots economies, often struggles with market access and consistent quality, issues that a simple rebrand to “ThaiWorks” won’t solve. The contrast with South Korea’s Hallyu wave is stark. While Hallyu benefited from government support, its success hinged on private sector dynamism, technological infrastructure (particularly broadband access), and a level of political stability that Thailand can only envy.
Thailand’s cyclical crises — the coups, the protests, the constitutional rewrites — create an inherently unstable platform for projecting sustained influence. Political scientist Thitinan Pongsudhirak has long maintained that a robust, legitimate democracy is the sine qua non of genuine soft power. It’s not enough to be interesting; a country must also project an image of competence and reliability. Without addressing the underlying issues of governance and accountability, “Splash — Soft Power Forum 2025” risks becoming a Potemkin village, a superficial display that masks deeper vulnerabilities.
The challenge, ultimately, isn’t about Thailand’s cultural output, which is vibrant and globally appealing. It’s about whether these cultural exports can transcend the country’s internal political contradictions. Can soft power be a force for genuine progress, fostering social cohesion and economic opportunity, or will it remain a glossy veneer over unresolved tensions? The answer, as always, lies not just in the performance, but in the underlying reality it seeks to represent. And that reality is still very much in flux.
