Thailand POLITICAL PARTIES
Former Prime Minister (1975-76) Kukrit Pramoj
Courtesy Royal Thai Embassy
In the late 1980s, the Thai political party system continued
to evolve, albeit spasmodically. It was at a delicate stage of
transition from its past status as an adjunct to the bureaucratic
establishment to a more substantial role as a channel for popular
representation and a provider of top political executives.
The concept of party politics dated back to the early 1930s,
but its impact was generally insignificant, having been
overshadowed by the military-bureaucratic elite. The struggle for
power was nearly always settled by coup, and the pluralistic
demands of the society were accommodated through either
bureaucratic channels or patron-client connections. For decades
political parties had an uncertain status. When they existed,
they did so at the sufferance of generals, who abolished or
revived them at will. Parties were unable to maintain continuity,
nor could they develop a mass base. Part of the problem was the
bad image of partisan politics, which the politicians brought on
themselves through their unscrupulous pursuit of self-interest.
Party politics received a major impetus from the student
uprising of October 1973
(see Thailand in Transition
, ch. 1).
Forty-two parties participated in the 1975 parliamentary
election, and thirty-nine participated the following year. The
freewheeling partisan politics during the so-called democratic
period of 1973-76 ended in the coup of October 1976. Kriangsak,
the army commander in chief, appointed a civilian-led government,
but the Thanin Kraivichien regime turned out to be overly
repressive and was overthrown in 1977. Assuming the office of
prime minister himself, Kriangsak permitted the resumption of
party politics banned by Thanin. Of the 39 parties that took part
in the April 1979 election, 7 parties captured about 70 percent
of the 301 contested seats.
As a result of the confusion stemming from the proliferation
of minor parties, a new political parties act was passed in July
1981. The act, which became effective in 1983, specified that to
participate in an election, a party must have a minimum of 5,000
members spread throughout the country's four geographical
regions. In each region, at least five provinces must have
members, the minimum per province being fifty. The membership
requirement was designed to foster the development of mass-based
parties catering to broad national interests rather than narrow,
sectional interests. Another provision of the act stipulated that
a party must put up candidates for at least half the total lower
house seats, or 174 seats. As a result, in the 1983 and 1986
elections, the number of participating parties was reduced to
fourteen and sixteen, respectively. In order to satisfy the legal
requirements, some parties fielded candidates recruited from
among recent college graduates.
In the 1980s, the country's multiparty system continued to
suffer from traditional long-standing problems. These included
organizational frailty and lack of discipline, endemic
factionalism, the emphasis on personalities over issues, and the
politicians' penchant for vote-buying and influence-peddling.
Parties were formed, as before, by well-known or wealthy
individuals to promote their own personal, familial, parochial,
or regional interests. Observers expressed concern that failure
to improve the party system could result in a return to
authoritarian military rule.
The perception that political parties and politicians were
unworthy of trust was widespread in 1987. However, a coup was
ruled out by Chaovalit, the new army commander in chief, even
though he publicly castigated politicians as venal and
hypocritical. In February he asserted that political parties, the
Constitution, and elections alone would not make for a genuine
democracy in Thailand, where, he argued, the party system and
elections were controlled by a wealthy few who used the trappings
of democracy for their own benefit. Appearing before a
parliamentary committee in April 1987, Chaovalit maintained that
to build a real Thai-style democracy with the king as head of
state, the ever-widening income disparity must be narrowed first
and that at the same time political parties and all government
entities including the military "must join hands and walk ahead
together."
The major Thai parties, which Chaovalit had criticized, were
mostly right-of-center. Their numerical representation in the
House of Representatives varied considerably from one election to
another. Of the four ruling coalition parties in 1987, the
Democrat Party was considered to be somewhat liberal, despite its
beginning in 1946 as a conservative, monarchist party. Seni
Pramoj, prime minister in 1946 and again in 1976, led the party
from its inception until 1979. In 1974 the party suffered major
fragmentation and lost some key figures, including Kukrit, Seni's
brother, who formed the Social Action Party that year. In the
1979 election, the Democrats suffered a major setback but
rebounded in 1983. Over the years, this party consistently
opposed military involvement in politics and actively sought to
broaden its base of support across all social segments and
geographical regions. In recent years, particularly after July
1986, the Democrats were racked by internal strife. Their leader
Bhichai Rattakul, deputy prime minister in Prem's coalition, was
reconfirmed in a factional showdown in January 1987. Afterward,
retired Lieutenant Colonel Sanan Khachornprasart was named
secretary general, in place of Veera Musikapong, whose faction
had been backed by wealthy Bangkok businessman Chalermphan
Srivikorn.
The Chart Thai Party, sometimes called the "generals' party,"
was founded in 1974 by a group of retired generals and was led
until July 1986 by Pramarn Adireksan, retired major general and
former president of the Association of Thai Industries and the
Thai Textile Association. Aggressively anticommunist, Chart Thai
was backed by a number of prominent industrialists. After the
July 1986 election, it was led by retired General Chatichai
Choonhaven, whose relationship with Prem was friendly.
The Social Action Party, a 1974 offshoot of the Democrat
Party, was led by Thai statesman Kukrit Pramoj until he stepped
down in December 1985. The party was led thereafter by the former
deputy party leader and minister of foreign affairs, Siddhi
Savetsila, a retired air chief marshal. More than any other
party, the Social Action Party was identified with a free
enterprise economy. In the 1986 election, the party suffered a
severe loss, brought on in no small part by its own internal
strife. In May 1986, a splinter faction led by seventy-four-year-
old Boontheng Thongsawasdi formed the United Democracy Party with
financial support from big business--amid a spate of rumors that
General Arthit was also among the party's behind-the scenes
backers. In the July 1986 election and afterward, the United
Democracy Party was outspokenly critical of the Prem
administration.
The Rassadorn Party, the fourth member of the ruling
coalition, was formed only a few months before the July 1986
election; until May 1986 it was known as the National Union
(Sahachat) Party. Its leader was Thienchai Sirisamphan, retired
deputy army commander in chief. Rassadorn came to be known as a
pak taharn (military party) because its key party posts
were held by retired generals. Its entry into partisan politics
was welcomed by many for providing a constructive channel for
military involvement in parliamentary government.
The exclusion of the United Democracy Party from the fifth
coalition government was predictable in light of its anti-Prem
stance. However, it probably came as a surprise to Samak
Sundaravej, leader of the Prachakorn Thai Party formed in 1978,
that his right-wing and monarchist group was not invited to join
the coalition. Before the election, master orator Samak stated
that the new postelection government should continue its strong
military ties and should once again be led by outgoing Prem. In
so doing, he rejected the suggestion that Kukrit Pramoj, who had
retired from party politics altogether in May 1986, should head
the new postelection regime.
The Ruam Thai Party and the Community Action Party, both
formed in 1986, were also among the seven parties supporting Prem
for continued premiership; but they, too, were left out of the
coalition. The leader of the Ruam Thai Party, Narong Wongwan, was
a former member of the Social Action Party and outgoing minister
of agriculture and cooperatives. The Community Action Party was
led by its founder Boonchu Rojanasathien, one-time deputy prime
minister in charge of economic affairs, ex-deputy leader of the
Social Action Party, and former president of the Bangkok Bank.
The remaining seven parties with one or more elected House of
Representatives members formed the "Group of Nineteen," so named
because of their combined total of nineteen members. These
parties agreed in August 1986 to join with other noncoalition
parties to form a united front in an attempt to ensure efficient
and systematic monitoring of the government. In a crucial
showdown over a no-confidence motion against the Prem government
in April 1987, however, the opposition bloc suffered a major
political embarrassment because of the last-minute defection from
the censure debate by fifteen of its members. Boonchu, chief
strategist of the five-member opposition leadership team,
expelled five members from his Community Action Party for their
action.
Data as of September 1987
|