Biggest parties have bigger concern than the referendum

Both parties’ situation can be summed up in a simple analogy: Think of a tree-hugger who is facing demands for divorce from his wife and at the same time trying to locate his runaway drug-addict son. He doesn’t have time to fight for the environment despite all the damage being done. He can say a few words to advocate his ideology, but that should be it. At the end of the day, the family must come first.

The man can blame the “environment”, namely the coup and the charter draft, for his broken home. That won’t help, though. Instead he faces a stark choice: Restore his family so he can deal with the environment more effectively later, or do nothing about the family and see it fall apart along with the environment. 

Assuming the charter draft passes the referendum, a general election will be held next year. This means the two parties have roughly a year to put their houses in order. And that is in the event that both parties begin their internal “reforms” now.

This is not to say that the charter draft warrants no scrutiny or resistance. This is to say that both the Democrats and Pheu Thai have to prioritise issues and take a long, hard look in the mirror. If they go into the next election adamant that only “the others” are to blame, they won’t be contributing anything meaningful to the environment. 

For the Democrats, they have a year to ponder whether Abhisit Vejjajiva should continue as their flag-bearer and, if so, what other changes are needed to beat the seemingly unbeatable Pheu Thai at the polling booth. The time will seem a lot shorter if the party decides that a big change at the very top is required.

Thailand’s oldest party was in need of change even before the coup. Calls for an overhaul were being made when Pheu Thai was omnipresent and Suthep Thaugsuban was still playing conventional politics. Having lost several key members to street protests and seen a large section of their fan base support the coup and its consequences, the Democrats now need restructuring and reform more than ever.

The first challenge is for the Democrats to accept that their rival’s rural popularity has much to do with policies rather than tactics. The impression that Pheu Thai “bought its way to power” has negatively affected the Democrats, triggering the belief that whatever Pheu Thai did in the past was wrong. A desperation to be different has influenced Democrat policies and mentality.

The Democrats do possess some healthy characteristics. The party has never been dominated by an individual or clan. Leadership has been passed from one man to another in arguably the most democratic manner of any Thai political party. The likes of Chuan Leekpai, Banyat Bantadtan and Abhisit have each taken turns at the helm and not once has the leadership been a “fake” one. Party branches have played significant roles in determining changes at the top.

What seems to be the problem then? Why have the Democrats lost election after election? The truth is the party has failed to combine rhetoric, appeal, work, policies, etc into a winning formula. It now has approximately a year to figure out how to reverse the unenviable impression that “the Democrats are at their best when in opposition”.

As for Pheu Thai, the “environment” is being heavily blamed. A debate on whether the party is a major part of the “environment” will get us nowhere. It’s safe to say, however, that Pheu Thai can only move forward after it addresses some serious internal issues. The party has two main flaws – it always deflects credible corruption charges by calling them an elitist conspiracy, and it relies very strongly on the divisive Shinawatras.

Pheu Thai needs a new leadership that won’t over-exercise its election mandate if it remains successful at the polls. Like the Democrats, it has roughly one year to figure out the who and the how. The Shinawatras will remain a big selling point and core reason why the party will win or lose the next election, but Pheu Thai’s dependence on them carries a very big price.

The party is blaming “opportunistic” generals and certain Democrats for not respecting the rules of the game, but here are some questions for Pheu Thai to ponder: Why did it have to slam through the “blanket amnesty” bill? Did its government really need to borrow Bt2 trillion outside normal budgetary channels to fund a mass-transit revamp? Did Pheu Thai sincerely believe that international business deals should be shielded from parliamentary scrutiny? These are just a few of the mandate-related issues that provoked street protests and eventually the demise of the Pheu Thai government.

If Pheu Thai and the Democrats decide against internal change, think of that tree hugger again. Imagine that he goes on preaching about the values for a good environment while the divorce lawsuit lies on the table and his drug-addicted child remains at large. Should he be trusted to save the world?