Reversing into the future

The confusion associated with behind closed doors dealing has perhaps peaked. There’s been some commentary that seems worth considering.

One is by academic Patrick Jory, who argues that now over two months after the election, “a sense of realism has set in.” He says this entails “… Pheu Thai, which ran a respectable second place in the May election with 141 seats, which now appears to be taking the lead in forming an alternative, conservative coalition.” Realism but probably not what voters expected.

Jory observes that:

There is a political logic to a Pheu Thai-led conservative coalition. Despite coming second to Move Forward, Thaksin [Shinawatra] and Pheu Thai remain a powerful force in Thai politics. Thaksin has publicly declared that he wants to return home from exile, and is willing to face legal charges and even some (token) jail time.

But Thaksin may also have calculated that a conservative coalition would give considerable leverage to Pheu Thai. With the radical Move Forward on the rise, ironically the conservatives now need Thaksin, hence their apparent willingness to deal with their erstwhile enemy. It would be a win-win situation for Pheu Thai, much preferable to playing second fiddle to Move Forward.

Well, a win-win for Thaksin. Jory looks at the irony:

If Pheu Thai and the conservative parties do form a coalition, this would represent an historic political shift. The two sides have been in a political war since 2006. The conservatives have thrown everything at Thaksin — two military coups, three party dissolutions, the banning of his leading politicians, the seizure of his assets, drafting constitutions designed to keep him from winning elections, and killing scores of his ‘Red Shirt’ supporters in a violent crackdown on protests in 2010. Now, Thaksin may feel satisfied that the conservative parties have come begging to form a coalition to keep out Move Forward, whom they regard as the greater danger.

Pravit Rojanaphruk at Khaosod also has a look at the “conservativisation” of Puea Thai as Thaksin seeks a return, pointing to the conspicuous royalism of the party bosses. He rightly dismisses claims that “redshirt pro-Pheu Thai supporters are and have always been royalists.” Utter nonsense, of course, but these are nonsensical times. Like Jory, Pravit notes the fear among the elite:

Equally important, however, is there is now a far bigger perceived threat to the establishment in the form of Move Forward Party, which is the only major political party pledging to reform the controversial lese majeste law and stop short of saying they want to reform the monarchy institution itself.

They fear that their country and their capacity for political and economic deals will be taken from them if the sky falls. Pravit continues:

Now, the conservative elites under the current and relatively new reign of Rama X need the Pheu Thai Party to be on its side in an attempt to isolate and stop the rise of Move Forward, which is hugely popular among young Thais. It is a classic divide and rule tactic although this time, Pheu Thai leaders and their diehard supporters believe it is time to shift towards the right in politics as they could no longer compete with Move Forward Party’s left-leaning politics.

For us, what we see is that without the radical push from below, associated with red shirts and pro-democracy activists, and without ruling class opposition, Puea Thai is reverting to its original Thai Rak Thai politics.

And, as a final piece, look at the Bangkok Post’s telling of what comes next.