Five prime ministers, five crises: Anutin faces toughest test yet

Thailand’s current energy crisis, triggered by the prolonged conflict in the Middle East, is rapidly becoming a defining leadership test for Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, placing his administration alongside past governments that were judged by their handling of national crises.

The Anutin administration is still in transition, awaiting full operational authority following its oath-taking and policy statement to Parliament. Yet it is already facing mounting pressure as the regional conflict drives oil price volatility and supply concerns at home.

So far, the government has opted to rely on existing legal frameworks rather than invoking emergency powers. It has set up the Joint Management and Monitoring Center for the Situation in the Middle East as a central mechanism to coordinate responses, monitor developments and integrate efforts across state and private sectors, particularly on energy and transport.

However, questions have emerged over the effectiveness of this approach, especially as the crisis shows signs of prolonging. In response, Anutin is preparing to appoint Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Ekniti Nitithanprapas as the new head of the centre, replacing Phiphat Ratchakitprakarn, in a move aimed at restoring public confidence.

The unfolding situation has revived comparisons with previous Thai governments that faced major crises, each of which tested leadership in different ways.

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is often cited as a benchmark for decisive crisis management. During the 2003 Phnom Penh riots, he ordered rapid evacuations of Thai nationals and coordinated a strong diplomatic response, eventually securing compensation from Cambodia. His administration also faced avian flu outbreaks and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, where he quickly established a central command structure and personally directed operations on the ground.

By contrast, the 2011 floods under Yingluck Shinawatra exposed challenges in coordination and decision-making. Despite establishing a central flood relief command, delays, political divisions and conflicting approaches between central and local authorities undermined confidence. The phrase “under control” became a symbol of public scepticism.

During the administration of Prayut Chan-o-cha, Thailand faced prolonged economic strain and the Covid-19 pandemic. Emergency powers were invoked, including lockdowns and curfews, while large-scale borrowing was used to support the economy. However, the government faced criticism over vaccine procurement, communication and rising public debt.

More recently, the government of Paetongtarn Shinawatra was challenged by tensions with Cambodia, including border clashes and transnational crime issues. Critics pointed to a lack of decisiveness and political complications, which ultimately weakened the administration’s ability to manage the crisis effectively.

Now, Anutin’s leadership is under similar scrutiny. The current energy crisis has exposed weaknesses in early assessments, particularly after initial assurances that Thailand had sufficient oil reserves for 90 days were contradicted by rising prices and localised shortages. The government has also faced allegations of policy missteps and conflicts of interest linked to officials involved in energy-related roles.

Public pressure has intensified, with labour groups staging protests and opposition parties criticising the government’s handling of the crisis. Anutin has since issued a public apology, acknowledging that the situation had been misjudged and that confidence in the government had been shaken.

Security expert Lt General Paradorn Pattanatabut said the crisis could escalate further if the conflict worsens, potentially requiring stronger legal measures such as emergency powers. However, he noted that the current situation remains manageable under existing laws, although public trust remains a critical concern.

He also argued that effective crisis management ultimately depends on leadership clarity, coordination and public communication. While past leaders demonstrated varying strengths, from decisiveness to communication, the current administration’s biggest challenge lies in restoring credibility.

As Thailand navigates another period of uncertainty, the lesson from past crises remains consistent: policy tools matter, but leadership determines whether a government can maintain public trust and steer the country through disruption.

For Anutin, the outcome of this crisis may not only shape the energy sector, but also define the political future of his administration.