For a movement that prides itself on being politically innovative, the People’s Party appears confoundingly committed to repeating the same tactics that have consistently hindered its ability to achieve the authority it needs to effect real change.
The so-called “orange party” submitted two new constitutional amendment bills to parliament this past week, proposing mechanisms for drafting a new constitution while reiterating three key points: public participation, prevention of political monopolisation and opposition to expanding the Senate’s special powers.
PP leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut explained that two versions of the amendment were handed in to improve the chances that at least one featuring the party’s three principles would advance through parliament.
One could characterise that decision as prudent, or conversely, that the party is bracing for failure.
This latest push for constitutional change by the People’s Party may once again energise its activist base, dominate social media discourse and even reaffirm its credentials as the bearer of democratic reform in Thailand.
But it has to be asked, why does the party seem so determined to repeat the same motions over and over again, even though the results have shown no signs of changing? Has it learned anything from the political dead ends of recent years?
Thailand’s modern political history has made it quite clear to the People’s Party and similar groups that no reform agenda, however morally compelling, survives unless its proponents can first secure durable political power.
More importantly, events over the past decades have shown that durable power in Thailand is not secured through rhetorical victories alone.
Persistent attempts at charter change appear rooted in a belief that constitutional engineering is the only starting point for political transformation. In the reality of Thai governance however, it is usually the culmination of it.
The contradiction at the heart of the PP strategy is increasingly difficult to ignore. It seeks sweeping structural change while repeatedly prioritising the very issues that mobilise resistance against it before it has consolidated enough institutional protection to withstand that resistance.
Almost every major attempt to pursue foundational reform by Mr Natthaphong’s camp has triggered establishment anxiety and judicial scrutiny, the likes of which lead to its members being removed from the political stage altogether.
One would have expected the party’s leadership to absorb the implications of the dissolution of its two predecessors — Future Forward and Move Forward — and the repeated disqualification threats hanging over all reformist politicians. Instead, the People’s Party seems determined to test the limits of these political fault lines again and again.
Even without engaging in conspiracy theory or conjecture, the repetitive actions of the People’s Party cause one to wonder what its larger motives and aspirations might be.
Those dedicated to bringing about positive social change in Thailand can be forgiven for being confused by the party’s devotion to certain moves, when it has become clear they are the stumbling blocks to a bigger picture.
Even if one believed that the party has some larger, subtler plan, it is hard to imagine that such a plan involves engaging in the practices that have prevented it from taking a firm lead, even if we concede that some of the resistance it faces is purpose-made.
Successful political movements throughout history have understood the necessity of sequencing. They establish administrative competence first, broaden coalitions and gradually normalise their presence within the political system. Only then do they attempt deeper structural redesign.
The People’s Party appears to think it can do all of this in reverse.
Defenders may argue that compromising on charter reform would amount to betraying PP supporters. But how well are those supporters served by a party with dwindling numbers and that finds dead ends on almost all its paths?
Ahead of submitting the charter amendment bills, Mr Natthaphong poked the proverbial tiger by posting a screed that decried how the country has been overtaken by a “blue regime”, alluding to the coalition-leading Bhumjaithai Party.
Apart from further burning off of any goodwill still left between his party and that of PM Anutin Charnvirakul, the Facebook post incurred the wrath of 89 senators who have demanded an apology.
Surely a more conducive atmosphere could have been established before the People’s Party sought to gain support for its nation-altering proposals.
Even Bhumjaithai’s most fervent detractors would likely acknowledge that the party tactfully manoeuvred its way through the labyrinth of Thai politics to arrive at its desired prize.
All of this is not to say that charter amendments are unimportant, or even that the causes the People’s Party is championing are not sorely needed. Thailand’s constitution is wielded almost daily to perpetuate practices that are counterproductive to the country’s best interests, and election results have shown time and again that a significant portion of the population yearns for change. But timing matters in politics.
If the People’s Party genuinely seeks lasting transformation, it may need to reconsider whether symbolic confrontation is worth perpetual political vulnerability.
