Re-engineering political DNA

To be honest, the People’s Party’s past few months has been a series of stumbles and seemingly an exercise in reverse engineering a reformist party, founded on ideas about change, condemnation of the lese majeste law and other aspects of political repression, criticism of the military and other establishment figures and groups, and the need for constitutional reform.

To be sure, some members of the party and several of its MPs have been at the forefront of various important and searching criticisms of the establishment and the regime. Yet the basic political DNA of the party is being modified.

Supporting Anutin Charnvirakul and his party of gangsters was a stumble that seems to be a result of party leadership decision-making that resembled the kind of scheming of the average transactional parties.

The same leadership team seems to have convinced the party’s military critics to remain silent on the military’s exploitation of the border skirmishes with Cambodia, even when the military has lied, destroyed cultural icons, seized land that has long been disputed, sent its troops inside Cambodia and had its budgets boosted enormously.

In the last week, that party leadership has been busily smudging some of the remaining planks of the party’s reformism.

One move was its nomination of former diplomat and junta-approved senator Pisan Manawapat as its prospective foreign minister, even though he is constitutionally unqualified until some time later in 2026.

Academic activist Pavin Chachavalpongpun criticized Pisan, highlighting his support for the junta when he was an ambassador in North America. He pointed to support expressed for the coup and the junta, and his “claims about the absence of political prisoners and the monarchy’s strict adherence to the constitution…”.

Pisan has since said that his “statements … were part of official embassy communications and not personal endorsements of the junta.” Yet the evidence unearthed by critics suggest that he’s fibbing on this.

People’s Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut has also “explained” that “cabinet appointments are based on political alignment with the party and relevant expertise rather than party loyalty alone.” Once this is the “rule,” deals can be done with anyone. One can only imagine the horrifying political calisthenics that might accompany the formation of a coalition government.

With several other sitting People’s Party MPs, Dr Kalyapat Rojitroj were not endorsed by the party leadership in the upcoming election. Among others, she has responded to this ousting and the rise of outsider “technocrats”: “She announced her resignation, citing changes in the party, loss of original ideals, and a shift toward fake power. She criticized the party for appointing outsiders as ministerial quota holders…”. She added:

No matter how many technocrats or highly skilled professors with doctorates you bring in, their value does not compare to the commitment of one person who must leave. Hundreds of doctors cannot replace Luk-Kaed, Toto, Kaewta, or P’Mart. For clarity, I respect the senior academics appointed as external cabinet ministers, but I prioritize those who have invested time in the party, share its DNA, and understand its identity.

The party leadership appears determined to erase notions of reform. In late December, Natthaphong declared that “his party has no policy to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code…”. While 112 reform has brought the party troubles, it has also been a part of the People’s Party identity.

Equally stunning was Natthaphong’s soft pedalling on the military. He stated that the People’s Party “fully supports the procurement of necessary weaponry.” He added that the party “supported the budget for the Gripen jets used in recent operations [to bomb targets in Cambodia].”

PPT understands the leadership wants to downplay controversial aspects of the party’s “past,” but is remaking the party without its progressive reformism just creating a “better” Democrat Party? Maybe that is actually Natthaphong’s political DNA.