By Dr Mohd Safar Hasim
Thailand’s political landscape has taken a decisive turn. With the recent appointment of Anutin Charnvirakul as Prime Minister, the country has entered a new phase—one that signals both a retreat of the Shinawatra dynasty and a reassertion of establishment control.
Anutin, leader of the conservative Bhumjaithai Party, rose to power following the Constitutional Court’s removal of Paetongtarn Shinawatra, daughter of Thaksin Shinawatra, over an ethics violation.
This marks the first time in over a decade that Thailand’s premiership is held by someone outside the Shinawatra orbit, despite the family’s enduring electoral appeal.
Thaksin himself quietly left the country just before the vote, reportedly heading to Dubai amid a pending Supreme Court ruling that could see him return to prison. His departure, coupled with his daughter’s ouster, underscores a dramatic shift: the dismantling of a populist dynasty that once redefined Thai politics.
Civilian Rule: The Rise and Recoil of Populist Mandates
Thaksin’s ascent in 2001 marked a turning point in Thai governance. His party, Thai Rak Thai, mobilised rural voters with promises of universal healthcare, village development funds, and debt relief. His re-election in 2005 with a parliamentary supermajority was unprecedented. But his success also triggered alarm among Bangkok’s traditional elite, who viewed his populism as destabilising.
Following the 2006 coup, Thaksin’s successors—including his sister Yingluck and later Paetongtarn—continued to win elections under rebranded parties like Pheu Thai. Yet each civilian government backed by the Shinawatras faced legal disqualification, mass protests, or military intervention. The pattern was clear: electoral legitimacy alone could not secure executive power in Thailand.
Military Rule: The Enduring Shadow Over Democracy
Thailand’s military has long positioned itself as the guardian of national unity and royal sanctity. Since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932, the country has experienced 13 successful coups and over 20 attempted ones. Military rulers—from Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat to General Prayuth Chan-o-cha—have governed directly or indirectly, often under the guise of restoring order.
Even when civilian governments are in place, the military retains influence through:
– Appointed senates
– Security legislation
– Control over media and education
Anutin’s rise, while technically civilian, reflects this dynamic. His party’s alignment with royalist and military interests suggests a continuation of establishment rule, albeit with a softer populist veneer.
The Monarchy: Sacred Symbol, Strategic Actor
Thailand’s monarchy, led by the Chakri dynasty since 1782, remains central to national identity. The current monarch, King Vajiralongkorn (Rama X), inherited the throne from his father, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, whose 70-year reign shaped modern Thai political culture.
While the monarchy is constitutionally symbolic, its influence is profound:
– Monarchs have historically endorsed military coups
– Royal approval lends legitimacy to governments
– The monarchy rarely intervenes to protect civilian rule
This symbiosis between monarchy and military has created a hybrid system—neither fully democratic nor authoritarian—where elite institutions often override popular mandates.
Why Coups Persist: Interests Over Ideology
Thailand’s coup-prone nature stems from structural and cultural factors:
– Weak civilian oversight of the military and judiciary
– Elite resistance to redistributive reforms
– Constitutional loopholes that embed veto points
– Public perception of the military as a stabilizing force
The recent political realignment illustrates a timeless truth:
In Thai politics, there are no permanent friends or enemies—only permanent interests.
Anutin’s coalition, once allied with Pheu Thai, turned decisively against it when the opportunity arose. Thaksin’s own attempts at reconciliation with the establishment were ultimately outpaced by shifting alliances and legal constraints.
Civic Lessons for Malaysia and the Region
Thailand’s experience offers critical insights for Southeast Asia’s emerging democracies:
– Democracy requires more than elections—it demands institutional safeguards and civic vigilance.
– Civil-military relations must be recalibrated to ensure that armed forces serve, not steer, the state.
– Symbolic power must be scrutinised—when monarchies or militaries claim to act in the national interest, citizens must ask: whose interests are truly being served?
As Thailand enters a new chapter under Anutin Charnvirakul, the Shinawatra dynasty appears to be in retreat. But the deeper story is one of institutional resilience vs democratic fragility.
For Malaysia and its neighbours, the Thai case is both a cautionary tale and a call to action: to build systems where popular will is not just expressed, but protected—in courts, classrooms, and constitutions.
(The views expressed here are entirely those of Dr Mohd Safar Hasim, Council Member of the Malaysian Press Institute (MPI) and a former senior academic at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and a senior journalist at BERNAMA, the Malaysian national news agency).