Democrats can't win without major internal reform

Chuan was commenting on a very public statement from Alongkorn Polabutra, one of the party’s deputy leaders, who suggested that the Democrats must now embark on “major reform” to shed the reputation of “eternal loser” in general elections.

It’s not what he said. It’s how and where he said it that sparked the mini-uproar within the party.

Alongkorn isn’t the first party executive to suggest that major changes be undertaken if the Democrats are to remain relevant in the face of Thaksin Shinawatra’s Pheu Thai Party’s dominance, which seems set to continue as long as the former premier can control the levers of power. In fact, Thaksin is so confident of being able to control the electioneering apparatus that he has told party members that, if the move to amend the Constitution fails, he will push for dissolution of Parliament to call for a general election. This indicates that he believes he can win big again, and this time his party could garner an absolute majority and be in a position to ram through any bill it wants. This shows that Pheu Thai doesn’t consider the Democrats a threat in any future election at all. 

Alongkorn’s contention is that the Democrat Party must undergo reform in three major areas: party structure, management and culture, and personnel.

When he emphasised that reform must aim at creating a higher degree of democracy within the party, he was obviously pointing to the issue of allowing a more open system of management. The Democrat paradox has always been that it’s a party of outspoken politicians who are shy about being critical of the inner workings of the party.

Alongkorn’s argument is that the party has lost in too many elections, and if that losing streak isn’t checked, the public’s confidence in the party’s ability to return to power will be rendered so weak that victory will become an eternally remote possibility.

“In countries like the UK and the US, when one of the two major parties loses in one or two elections, a major reform movement is launched to try to make a comeback,” Alongkorn said. “The Republican Party in America, for example, has just announced a major reform plan after having lost in two elections. But we the Democrats have lost in elections for the past 20 years – or the equivalent of five general elections in a row – and I still can’t see how we can win again. I personally think we are already too late, but we must take the first step before aiming for the second or third steps.”

The fact that an old party hand like Alongkorn had to speak out in public about the need for change says a lot about the trouble with the party’s system. Most senior members recognise the need for a major revamp if the party is to win the next election, but the “big push” has to come from the top tier of leadership, especially Abhisit Vejjajiva. 

Insiders say Abhisit would be the first to admit that wide-ranging changes are overdue. But entrenched interests and the lack of a sense of crisis at the top of the executive board have prevented any radical changes from being proposed – let alone implemented.

Some critics say the Democrat Party is haunted by self-contradictions. It’s both a success story as a party and a failure in governance; an inspiring model as well as a nightmarish cautionary case; and the party’s leaders are both skilful and clumsy. The Democrats are both visionary and stubborn at the same time.

Some senior party members insist that changes are already taking place but are mostly piecemeal in nature. That’s a far cry from the real reform that could convince the disillusioned constituencies that the Democrats are good at more than the old way of politics, but that they can really shake themselves up to prove that they can govern and govern well.