Planning for and protecting “mess-ups”

ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights has a statement on Thailand’s 2026 election.

While noting that “the Bhumjaithai Party, led by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, received the highest number of seats and is expected to form the next government,” it also observes that there are many “post-election petitions and recount requests in some constituencies…”. Oddly, is says these “are being addressed through established legal processes.”

Are they?

The APHR had “a three-day election study mission … [that] observed that polling day was conducted in an orderly manner in many locations, reflecting the efforts of election officials and other stakeholders.” But it then adds:

At the same time, discussions with a broad range of sectoral stakeholders highlighted several structural and contextual issues that extend beyond voting procedures and are relevant to public confidence in democratic governance. These included challenges related to transparency and access to election-related information, where complex formats, limited data infrastructure and restricted availability of datasets were seen as obstacles to broader public understanding and independent engagement.

The delegation’s observations also zoomed in on the overall framework governing the establishment and functioning of the Election Commission. Stakeholders have highlighted opportunities to enhance transparency, accountability and public confidence in the institution’s operations. APHR therefore encourages a review of the Commission’s terms of reference, including consideration of ways to ensure a more representative and inclusive appointment process, which could be addressed through future constitutional discussions.

That now all seems a bit to staid and restrained. As numerous media reports make clear, there have been a series of failures, anomalies and unexplained voting outcomes. Most of these can be sheeted back to the junta-era Election Commission.

In fact, it has been long known that the EC is hopelessly incompetent. It is meant to be. The junta didn’t design it to be a backstop for proper electoral processes. Rather, it was established to support conservative parties and it has done that job exceptionally well. It gets reformists banned and supports their parties being dissolved.

What is becoming ever clearer is that the EC may have been party to a wider organized effort to move votes to conservative parties. No three-day delegation is going to be able to discern this, but as evidence of EC incompetence is gathered, the idea of organized manipulation is not out of bounds.

Take the Kla Tham gangster party as an example. The Bangkok Post says:

At first glance, Klatham’s breakthrough appears to defy conventional explanations. The party — home to roughly half the number of defectors from the once-mighty Palang Pracharath Party, which held some 40 MPs during the previous administration — reportedly ran with abundant resources but scant nationwide brand recognition compared with established powerhouses, according to an observer.

Having a bunch of incumbents from former military-backed parties is only part of it. Look at “abundant resources.” Kla Tham’s people have been disqualified again and again for links to scammers and its leader is close to “grey money.” There can be little doubt that the abundant resources were so abundant that they can extend beyond old-fashioned vote buying to constituency buying through local officials involved in managing elections.

As for the Bhum Jai Thai landslide, while the polls got it very wrong, it should be no surprise. Bhum Jai Thai also had huge financial capacity and it also brought in well-known constituency MPs. But gnawing away at PPT’s mind is how the party was able to “manage” the deeply flawed Senate selection process to produce a Bhum Jai Thai Senate. With the political acumen that required, we can easily imagine that EC errors, opacity, incompetence and so on could easily amount to a broader manipulation.

It may just be imagination, but we also recall that that rigging of the Senate selection saw no intervention from the EC to correct matters. As it is designed, the EC’s role has been to maintain the flawed outcome for the conservatives. We reckon we might be seeing the same kind of response to the recent election and all its obvious problems: cover-up, nothing-to-see-here, legitimate mistakes that made no difference to the outcome, etc.

There is a pattern….