Will Pita become next Thai PM?

Move Forward Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat.

THERE’S no denying that a phenomenal wind of change has swept Thailand with the spectacular victory of the Move Forward Party (MFP) in last Sunday’s election.

Led by the charismatic Pita Limjaroenrat, MFP wrested 152 seats in the 500-member lower house of Parliament, making him the foremost Prime Minister-in-waiting.

MFP, which holds 314 seats, has forged a coalition with seven other parties including Pheu Thai, Thai Sang Thai, Thai Liberal, Prachachart, Fair, Plung Sungkom Mai, and Peu Thai Ruamphalang.

The Chart Pattana Kla’s leader, Korn Chatikavanij – who was involved in the seven-month protests against the prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, resulting in the last coup d’état on May 22, 2014 and toppled her government – was also originally part of the coalition.

Korn, a former deputy leader of the Democrat Party, also supported General Prayut Chan-o-cha, the coup leader as prime minister.

Outraged grassroots members of MFP vented their objections to its inclusion, forcing Pita to reject it.

While “Pita fever” has certainly gripped the country, the 42-year-old businessman and Harvard alum is still a long way from becoming PM with 314 seats.

The reality of the current system of Thai democracy is the biggest obstacle.

The PM can only be nominated through a joint vote by the elected house of representatives and the unelected senate, which comprises 250 members appointed by the military.

A military-backed candidate with total support of the senate needs just 126 votes from the lower house to be PM while other candidates must win 375, or 75% of the lower house seats, to negate the senate’s unfair advantage.

Pita needs 376 votes, or 66 more, to secure the post. He is banking on the senators to reflect on the voters’ utter disdain for the junta in power and defect to support the coalition. He also hopes that MPs from non-coalition parties would back him in the interest of democracy.

Conservative parties, which hold 181 seats in the lower house, could throw a spanner in the works by securing the backing of majority in the senate.

Before parliament was dissolved on March 20, it was inconceivable for MFP to win the biggest number of seats.

Although it boldly promised to limit the military’s role in politics, overhaul the bureaucracy and review the law of lèse-majesté – offence against the dignity of the monarchy – it was largely regarded as the party of the young.

Most MFP candidates, largely unknowns who had fewer resources than their opponents, relied on social media, especially TikTok, and even did their campaigning on bicycles.

People under the age of 26 comprise only 14% of Thailand’s 52 million voters, but they formed a huge part of MFP’s campaign.

Their message resonated with Thais, disillusioned by nine years of military-guided rule under Prime Minister Prayuth, and weary of the political elites from entrenched families. The lèse-majesté, or Article 112 in the country’s criminal code, emerged as the biggest issue in the hustings.

Under the law, which has remained almost uncaged for 115 years, anyone who “defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir-apparent or the regent” can be jailed between three and 15 years.

MFP accused the government of using it to stifle dissent, highlighting the latest charges against 242 people from a youth-led protest movement.

Two teenage girls, aged 15 and 16, have also been charged, the first for attending a rally calling for the repeal of the law last year, with others for posting messages defaming the monarchy on Facebook two years ago.

While I was in Thailand last month when the campaign was in full gear, most opinion polls favoured the Pheu Thai, linked to former PM Thaksin Shinawatra.

It was not surprising, as parties either led or backed by the now-exiled Thaksin have won the most seats in every election since 2001.

However, they were prevented from power by putsches, prejudiced decisions by the judiciary and unfair election laws favouring army-backed parties.

Thaksin was in power between 2001 and 2006, and his sister Yingluck was the PM from 2011 to 2014.

They were ousted by coups. Now both of them are living in exile after being sentenced to prison over charges they claim were politically motivated.

Thaksin’s brother-in-law, Somchai Wongsawat, served as PM for a short period in 2008 before he was removed by a court ruling disbanding his People’s Power Party.

When his party emerged as the biggest winner last week, Pita led his victory rally from Bangkok’s Democracy Monument to a mall in front of the Metropolitan Administration Office, where he declared “a new day, bright with hope” for Thailand.

But already there are whispers that the will of the people is likely to be crushed again.

Although Thai military chief Narongpan Jittkaewtae ruled this out, two days before polling, such fears were not unfounded as there have been 14 coups in Thailand since 1932 when the country was still called Siam.

The first, by Khana Ratsadon (People’s Party) on June 24, 1932, ended the country’s centuries-long absolute monarchy rule under the Chakri Dynasty.

It led to a bloodless transition of Siam into a constitutional monarchy with the introduction of the first constitution and creation of the national assembly. King Prajadhipok remained on the throne after compromising with Khana Ratsadon. The military has played a major role in Thailand’s politics since then, via coups.

On Sunday, the Bangkok Post reported a warning by a prominent Thai academic of such a possibility.

Phichai Ratnatilaka Na Bhuket, programme director for politics and development strategy at the National Institute of Develop-ment Administration, said it could happen if Pita is unable to form a government, citing several scenarios of the resultant conflicts.

Will Pita lead Thailand into the dawn of a new era for his country? Or will this lead to yet another false dawn for Thailand’s democracy? We shall know over the next few weeks.

Media consultant M. Veera Pandiyan likes this observation of George Bernard Shaw: “Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.”

The views expressed here are the writer’s own.