Thailand's Puea Thai Party won a solid parliamentary majority in yesterday's election, and Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva graciously conceded defeat. Thais are left to wonder whether the new government will grant former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra amnesty for corruption and allow him to return home, and whether the military will step in to prevent that from happening.
For now, however, one outcome of the election is clear enough. The changes in Thai society that made the rise of Mr. Thaksin possible and that he furthered in his five years in office until he was ousted by the military in 2006 are continuing.
The incumbent Democrat Party and the challenger Puea Thai fought this contest primarily on the basis of party platforms and the personal appeal of the candidates. That may sound unremarkable, but Thai politics used to be the province of bland characters who campaigned on their ability to bring benefits to their local constituencies.
Patronage and vote buying continue to play a part in Thai politics today. But it's striking that in the last few weeks both parties mobilized their supporters on the basis of their visions for the nation as a whole. The pro-Thaksin Puea Thai set the agenda of rural development and globalization, and the Democrats were forced to follow.
Both parties pledged more help for the poor, including measures that could be fairly described as populist. Their proposals for increases in the minimum wage and more government support for farmers differed only in the details. The many promises of government spending have prompted concerns that the next government could wreck Thailand's public finances.
A more positive sign was the way in which the two parties competed to show they would enhance Thailand's international competitiveness. Both proposed badly needed investments in infrastructure and education.
It's notable that during the campaign the Democrats dropped references to a "sufficiency economy." In the 1970s, King Bhumibol Adulyadej coined the term to discourage indebtedness caused by overinvestment and overconsumption in rural areas. Since then it has grown into a nationalist and sometimes autarkic philosophy. Following the 2006 coup, the military junta revived the idea and the Democrats continued to pay lip service to it after Prime Minister Abhisit took office in late 2008.
Most Thais realize that such romanticism is a relic of the past. Mr. Thaksin encouraged rural residents to start local industries and produce tradable goods. Rural incomes expanded, and many farmers have traveled abroad and understand that greater opportunities await if the government removes obstacles to growth.
Puea Thai benefited from Mr. Thaksin's proven track record of development. As the campaign wore on and the Democrat Party lost ground, Mr. Abhisit began to emphasize his opponents' links to the pro-Thaksin "red shirt" movement that occupied central Bangkok last year. That episode ended in violence, with government troops killing at least 91 protesters and the red shirts setting fire to buildings.
Thai society remains highly polarized by these events and the Thaksin period, in which the former prime minister sometimes used his power to silence critics. But after his overthrow, the military government and then the Democrats failed to continue the more popular and successful Thaksin policies. They also failed to strengthen the weak institutions of government that allowed Mr. Thaksin's abuses. Instead they gave Thais the impression that they wanted to turn back the clock to an era when elites divided power among themselves with little regard for the voters.
As this election showed, Thailand has irrevocably reached the stage where it will be governed by mass parties. Creating the checks and balances to manage that political competition has become the most urgent task. Some analysts, such as Thitinan Pongsudhirak writing on these pages last week, have urged that the two sides reach an informal deal to establish norms of behavior. That is essential in the short term, but the next government will need to embark on the process of revising the constitution to create robust and independent institutions to govern the political process. Without such reforms, political uncertainty will continue to hold back Thailand's development.
For now, however, one outcome of the election is clear enough. The changes in Thai society that made the rise of Mr. Thaksin possible and that he furthered in his five years in office until he was ousted by the military in 2006 are continuing.
The incumbent Democrat Party and the challenger Puea Thai fought this contest primarily on the basis of party platforms and the personal appeal of the candidates. That may sound unremarkable, but Thai politics used to be the province of bland characters who campaigned on their ability to bring benefits to their local constituencies.
Patronage and vote buying continue to play a part in Thai politics today. But it's striking that in the last few weeks both parties mobilized their supporters on the basis of their visions for the nation as a whole. The pro-Thaksin Puea Thai set the agenda of rural development and globalization, and the Democrats were forced to follow.
Both parties pledged more help for the poor, including measures that could be fairly described as populist. Their proposals for increases in the minimum wage and more government support for farmers differed only in the details. The many promises of government spending have prompted concerns that the next government could wreck Thailand's public finances.
A more positive sign was the way in which the two parties competed to show they would enhance Thailand's international competitiveness. Both proposed badly needed investments in infrastructure and education.
It's notable that during the campaign the Democrats dropped references to a "sufficiency economy." In the 1970s, King Bhumibol Adulyadej coined the term to discourage indebtedness caused by overinvestment and overconsumption in rural areas. Since then it has grown into a nationalist and sometimes autarkic philosophy. Following the 2006 coup, the military junta revived the idea and the Democrats continued to pay lip service to it after Prime Minister Abhisit took office in late 2008.
Puea Thai benefited from Mr. Thaksin's proven track record of development. As the campaign wore on and the Democrat Party lost ground, Mr. Abhisit began to emphasize his opponents' links to the pro-Thaksin "red shirt" movement that occupied central Bangkok last year. That episode ended in violence, with government troops killing at least 91 protesters and the red shirts setting fire to buildings.
Thai society remains highly polarized by these events and the Thaksin period, in which the former prime minister sometimes used his power to silence critics. But after his overthrow, the military government and then the Democrats failed to continue the more popular and successful Thaksin policies. They also failed to strengthen the weak institutions of government that allowed Mr. Thaksin's abuses. Instead they gave Thais the impression that they wanted to turn back the clock to an era when elites divided power among themselves with little regard for the voters.
As this election showed, Thailand has irrevocably reached the stage where it will be governed by mass parties. Creating the checks and balances to manage that political competition has become the most urgent task. Some analysts, such as Thitinan Pongsudhirak writing on these pages last week, have urged that the two sides reach an informal deal to establish norms of behavior. That is essential in the short term, but the next government will need to embark on the process of revising the constitution to create robust and independent institutions to govern the political process. Without such reforms, political uncertainty will continue to hold back Thailand's development.
