Post-election sees new rift in Thai society

By Pattharapong Rattanasevee

The outcome of Thailand's 2019 general election, the first since the military took power in a coup in 2014, has been murky. With a lot of concerns and reports over a delay, amid fraud and alleged voting irregularities, this could cause grave difficulties in redrawing the country's political direction.

The Election Commission has until May 9, however, to release the official results. The process of negotiations to form a coalition government with third parties has begun as two have claimed a mandate: The Thaksin-aligned Pheu Thai which won 137 out of 350 constituency seats and the pro-military Palang Pracharat Party who that took 97 seats, but inched ahead in the popular poll with 8.4 million, according to the unofficial release of the total number of votes.

By the way, according to Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan, the new government is unlikely to take shape until a coronation ceremony in May.

Interestingly, there was a rising star in this election, the newly-formed Future Forward Party (FFP) led by tycoon-turned-politician Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, receiving 6.2million votes at the latest count, making it appear as Thailand's third-strongest party.

The party has become hugely popular among young voters through presenting itself as one of the anti-military (but pro-Thaksin) parties as well as its modern take on politics and attractive social media campaigning.

Targeting young voters and disenfranchised citizens, it called for the abolishment of the military-drafted constitution, a cut in the defense budget and the removal of any possibility of a military coup in the future.

These ambitious commitments have raised serious doubts as to whether they can be achieved, considering several constraints within the Thai political system, and whether they will trigger severe political conflicts. Just after launching the party, Thanathorn presented it as an alternative to the established parties, promising to heal political rifts.

Recently, Thanathorn stated on BBC Thai, "Thai politics has clearly transformed from anti/pro-Thaksin polarization into anti/pro-military government." Nevertheless, after analyzing the election results and the fall of the anti-Thaksin Democrat Party, Thailand's oldest political party, which had been the second-strongest in previous elections but has now lost its stronghold in Bangkok and many southern provinces, his assertion may be proven wrong.

Among most first-time voters, it might be true that the continuity of the military government was their most important concern, but among the rest of the country it might be not.

Just before the election, Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Democrat Party's leader, significantly announced that he did not support the military government and also would not ally with the pro-military party in a post-election coalition. Such positioning seemed to polarize voters into three camps and dissatisfied its loyal supporters which are mainly anti-Thaksin.

As a consequence, the large number of votes that should have belonged (or used to belong) to the Democrats have been directed to support the Palang Pracharat Party, evidently resulting in its huge number of votes, because people perhaps thought that the military would be a more effective way to fight Thaksin's influence in Thai politics.

In fact, none of the voters in Thailand really wanted to be subject to oppression under military rule unless something more important, peace and order, was considered worth sacrificing for. Thus, Thanathorn's rhetoric was just an illusion concealing the reality.

Furthermore, apart from the anti/pro-Thaksin political polarization, the FFP phenomenon has significantly triggered "a new level of political divide" within Thai society.

Reportedly, severe disagreements and bitter quarrels over opposite political stances between the young and the old occurred in some families and at workplaces, separating mothers from their children, grandfathers from their beloved grandchildren, teachers from students and even bosses from employees.

Some people acted aggressively toward people voting for the opposition, blaming them or treating them as fools. This battle of the generations has been increasingly evidenced on the internet and social media and is starting to go beyond politics.

Political discussion has been denied in public in order to preserve a peaceful and friendly gathering atmosphere. This may be comparable to the U.K.'s current Brexit experience whereby the young chose to remain within the EU while the old voted to leave.

On the whole, post-election Thailand will see a rocky transition back to democracy, as the military is certain to remain an influential force in politics. The political arena is likely to return to the pro- and anti-Thaksin rhetoric as in the past.

The political rift within society is back in place much earlier than expected, and this time deeper, bitter, multilayered and more intensified, and as such could inevitably break into violence anytime. It was far from over.

Dr. Pattharapong Rattanasevee is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Political Science and Law, Burapha University, Thailand.