Why both major parties can’t win back the public’s faith
Play
The recent spat between “mainstream” Democrats and the “Bangkok faction” led by Bangkok Governor MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra underscores not just a severe flaw in the country’s oldest political party. It also confirms the longstanding suspicion that the whol
The other major party might not have suffered a public split so far, but there is little doubt that Pheu Thai is also afflicted by a leadership crisis and a shaky future.
The big issue facing the two major parties is more or less the same: their politicians have lost touch with the people. They don’t represent the aspirations of ordinary citizens. And there is no indication that they realise how detached they have become from the country’s real problems.
The public doesn’t know the difference between the two parties, except for the personalities involved. And none of the personalities offers any substantial vision that could lead the country out of its current quagmire.
There is no clear distinction between the policies of the Pheu Thai and of the Democrats. Both are at best vote-getters geared to winning the next election – and their respective platforms have failed to convince the rest of us that they can really make Thailand more enlightened, prosperous or competitive in any significant way.
Then there are the leadership crises plaguing both parties. Here, we simply don’t see any effective succession plan from the country’s two major political players.
If you ask the average person what Pheu Thai means to them, they would most likely answer, Thaksin Shinawatra’s party. Yet because Thaksin couldn’t be in the country to run the party he delegated the job to his sister, Yingluck. And since Yingluck is now embroiled in legal troubles stemming from the rice-pledging scheme, it’s not clear who is actually leading the party.
But if you press the issue, the person on the street would tell you that whatever happens, Thaksin still “owns” the party and is probably running it from wherever he is.
But ask who Thaksin is grooming as future party leader, in the event that neither he nor Yingluck can physically or legally take that role, and most Thais wouldn’t be able to give you an answer. They might consider that, if a political party is indeed a personal asset, perhaps a son or daughter could take over. That isn’t clear either.
The fact that no one even considers the possibility of ordinary Pheu Thai members deciding who should lead “their” party is a clear indication that the concept of a political party representing the interests of groups of ordinary people around the country simply doesn’t exist.
The Democrat Party might not be “owned” by any particular person or group of people, but it appears rudderless, all the same.
The party does, though, have established guidelines for picking its leader. But since it hasn’t been able to attract “the best and the brightest” to its ranks, the choice of qualified and visionary individuals is limited to a narrow group of “second-tier” leaders.
The latest break-up between the group backing leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and the Bangkok faction headed by Sukhumbhand is probably only the tip of the iceberg of party turmoil. Public perception is being blurred by explanations that veer from a “diversity of views” to “internal bickering”.
And the party’s leadership doesn’t seem to be able to resolve longstanding conflicts between an old guard trying to maintain the status quo and “new blood” clamouring for real reform and meaningful changes that would win back the faith and trust of the majority.
If the leaders of both parties believe the new constitution being drawn up by a committee backed by the military National Council for Peace and Order runs counter to democratic principles, they should speak up with suggestions of a better formula.
If they think they could contribute to drafting a more viable charter, the two parties would have to prove to the people that they can win back their faith, trust and confidence. As of now, that doesn’t seem to be on the horizon.
