Thailand’s Democracy Crumbles: Broken Promises Weaponize Elections for Power
Democracy is built on promises. But what happens when the act of promising, the very mechanics of democratic persuasion, becomes the chief threat to stability? The news out of Thailand isn’t just about a power grab post-Paetongtarn Shinawatra; it’s a warning about how easily democratic processes can be gamed into self-destruction. The Pheu Thai Party and Bhumjaithai Party are now engaged in a high-stakes dance to form a coalition government, seemingly willing to meet the People’s Party’s (PP) demands: dissolving parliament within four months and holding a referendum on constitutional amendments. It’s a calculus as old as representative government itself: promise the electorate whatever it takes to win, and sort out the inconvenient details of governing later.
As Purawich Watanasukh, a lecturer at Thammasat University’s Faculty of Political Science, argues, these pledges are less about earnest commitment and more about political expediency. “Both Pheu Thai and Bhumjaithai will issue populist policies to boost their popularity as they realise they won’t have much time,” he warns, suggesting the short-term allure of popularity outweighs the grind of substantive governance. His analysis cuts deeper: they crave “control [of] government mechanisms which can benefit future elections.” It’s a depressing cycle where policy is secondary to perpetual campaigning.
However, once either party is in office, these pledges are likely to change, a lesson learned in 2023 when the Move Forward Party, which won the poll and is now defunct, faced collapsed negotiations, leaving runner-up Pheu Thai to form a government instead.
This isn’t just a quirk of Thai politics; it’s a parable of democratic decay. It exposes the fragility of trust in systems where institutions are brittle and power dynamics resemble a game of musical chairs. In 2023, Move Forward, the PP’s predecessor, won the election only to see their coalition hopes dashed in parliamentary maneuvering. This points to a critical chasm: the gap between winning an electoral mandate and possessing the actual power to govern. It’s a pattern that haunts democracies worldwide. But in Thailand, that disconnect isn’t just about political friction; it’s baked into the constitution itself. The military retains significant power through its appointed senators, a built-in veto player that ensures no government can truly defy the established order.
Thailand’s recent political history underscores the sheer difficulty of translating electoral wins into stable governance. Between 2001 and 2017, the country witnessed 13 elections or leadership changes Statista. These aren’t just data points; they’re symptoms of profound fractures within Thai society — fractures that quick fixes and transient coalitions are structurally incapable of healing. As Duncan McCargo, a professor of political science at the University of Leeds, has observed, Thailand’s chronic instability stems from the deep tension between entrenched elites and an increasingly assertive pro-democracy movement. It is a battle between the past and a contested future, where each election becomes another round in the same, unresolved fight.
The problem isn’t merely a lack of political will; it’s a set of structural incentives that prioritize short-term survival above all else. Knowing their window may be fleeting, Pheu Thai and Bhumjaithai are poised to flood the system with populist programs to shore up their standing. The Bangkok Post reports that the 2026 Budget Bill is poised to become a slush fund for these initiatives, effectively turning the budget into a political weapon. But this cycle isn’t just about pork-barrel spending; it cultivates an environment of profound cynicism, where the very idea of governance for the common good becomes a punchline. It risks reinforcing the perception that politics is a zero-sum game, eroding the very foundation of social trust upon which democracy depends.
Ultimately, this isn’t just about whether Pheu Thai or Bhumjaithai will keep their promises. It’s about a political system on the verge of devolving from policy-driven decision-making into a hollow performance of popularity. Democracies rely on a shared commitment to core values: truth, honesty, and a willingness to compromise. If Thai politics has truly descended into a game where alliances are disposable, promises are meaningless, and the mechanisms of democracy are simply tools for entrenching power, then democracy hasn’t been strengthened — it’s been weaponized. And that outcome is never, truly, democratic. It’s a slow-motion coup, conducted through the ballot box itself.
