Situation within Democrat Party far from normal
Play
While many say Thailand's oldest party needs to reform, few know how
A question as tough as the one asking how Thailand can solve its political crisis has to do with the Democrat Party’s future. How should the country’s oldest political party reform itself? This is an issue that is easy to raise – with Alongkorn Polabutra being the latest critical voice – but extremely difficult to tackle. If we look at some academics’ thoughts on the Democrats and at the party’s arch-enemies, we will know why.
Academics always criticise the Democrat Party leadership structure. One of the latest criticisms points out that the party neither belongs to “capitalists” or to the people. It’s just home to senior executives or veterans who have been there for a long time – perhaps too long, the critics say. What does that criticism allude to, actually? That the party should make up its mind between representing capitalist interests or people at grass-roots? There’s nothing wrong with asking the Democrats to make a decision on such things and clarify their position in the process, but the point is, does it really matter?
Regarding the Democrat Party being dominated by an old guard, let’s check out its arch-rival: Pheu Thai is controlled by just one man. In fact, every party that enjoyed the strongest support in Thailand’s biggest electoral region – the Northeast – before Pheu Thai, had a more “concentrated”, serve-till-I-die style of leadership than the Democrats do.
It can be said that the oldest party has the least attachment to “founders” or influential “clans”, compared with other parties. Bhichai Rattakul, Chuan Leekpai, Banyat Bantadtan and Abhisit Vejjajiva cannot be described as political allies who ganged up to keep the party under one group’s control. Leadership changes at the Democrat Party often meant tough competition. The same cannot be said for the other parties dominated by veterans such as Banharn Silapa-archa, Chavalit Yongchaiyuth or the late Samak Sundaravej. Those parties depend more on “individuals”. The once-promising Palang Dharma wilted after Chamlong Srimuang abandoned it. And who can imagine Pheu Thai continuing to be a united, dominant force without Thaksin Shinawatra?
Alongkorn suggests the Democrats need to change their management, culture and personnel. He did not provide details or elaborate how. What he did not sufficiently mention is the fact that the Democrats are always second-best because they lose in the Northeast every time, and the Northeast is a region always dominated by a party less progressive on leadership “culture” or management style.
This is not to say that the Democrats need no changes. If winning an election is of absolute importance, the situation cries out for major reform, but the question “How?” is a tough nut to crack. Pheu Thai thrives on populist policies, as they appeal to the poorer electorate. The Democrats have tried some populist programmes of their own, but the party looked anything but natural with them.
On Alongkorn’s “personnel” revamp, perhaps he should point out who are the “better” personnel at the Pheu Thai Party. On his ambiguous proposal that the party’s “structure” should be changed, again, he should demonstrate how Pheu Thai has a better structure.
All the questions lead us back to the Northeast. To win the hearts of the poor may be easy for Pheu Thai, but it’s questionable Alongkorn’s apparently idealistic proposals would work in the Northeast for the Democrats. Voters in the Northeast do not care if a party is well structured or poorly organised and controlled by people outside the executive board. “Personnel” and “culture” don’t matter much to them, either. The poor think differently, or at least they do not see the Democrats’ problems the way the others seem them.
What should the Democrats do then? Of course, they need to change. There is much more to the entire answer, but the simple one ends here.
