Napon Jatusripitak and I have a new article in Fulcrum on the strange alliances that have characterized Thai politics over the past three years. Click here to read it.
In 2024, we began to write about what we called the “grand compromise” between Pheu Thai and the formerly anti-Thaksin conservative parties. The foundations of that compromise have collapsed, with Pheu Thai ousted from power and Thaksin himself in prison. In its place is a grand compromise 2.0 — a confidence and supply agreement between the People’s Party and Bhumjaithai which underpins Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul’s government.
Interestingly, Thanathorn Juangroongrueangkit, founder of the now-defunct Future Forward Party, recently adopted the term “grand compromise” to refer to an ideal outcome where both conservatives and progressives — exhausted by decades of political conflict — agree to draft a new constitution that can “return politics to normalcy.” In his view, the agreement between the PP and Bhumjaithai is the first step towards achieving that. The commentator Kam Phaka, known for her Pheu Thai sympathies, has instead criticized the deal as a betrayal of the PP’s ideological principles. When the PP does it, it’s called a “grand compromise,” she said— “but if Pheu Thai does it, it’s called pledge-breaking.”
In our view, neither grand compromise is healthy for Thai democracy. We hope to clarify that while compromise is a necessary part of politics, “grand” compromises of the type that we have seen over the course of this parliament is not necessarily “good” compromise. Instead, too many of these unexpected partnerships risks taking Thailand to a state where cynical voters find it increasingly difficult to differentiate between the various parties, and cannot credibly hope that they will get distinguishable policy outcomes by voting for one party over another. All the major players have been tainted by toxic alliances — and this inevitably makes the entire party system weaker.