Thinking the unthinkable: A coalition of the two big parties

[webfact]

OPINION

Thinking the unthinkable: A coalition of the two big parties

By Suthichai Yoon 
The Nation

 

If you want to stir a huge debate among friends at this point, when no one is sure when the next election will take place, there is one sure way to ignite a really heated exchange.

 

Just say that you’re almost certain the two major parties, Pheu Thai and the Democrats, will form a grand coalition government after the next election.

 

With that, you provoke people on at least three major controversies:

 

1. How do you know there will be an election?

2. How do you know Abhisit and whoever is really running Pheu Thai will agree to that formula?

3. How do you know the military will not do everything in their power to block that?

 

Speculation about the possibility of a “grand coalition” has always been part of the Thai political landscape. Nothing has come of it, so far. You would think that, by now, veteran politicians must have learned the lesson of their delayed efforts to reach political compromise only for the military to inevitably come up with their own solution: Another coup, another promise of an election. The vicious circle continues.

 

The same old scenario is looming yet again. The outgoing military junta has somehow managed to ram through a new charter that will give them a good portion of the seats in Parliament after the election. 

 

Under even the best-case scenario, none of the existing political parties can win a simple majority. That opens up the way for the military to remain in power one way or the other, claiming constitutional legitimacy. And with the provision allowing an “outsider” (a non-MP) to become the prime minister, there is every reason to suspect that things have been arranged in such a way that General Prayut Chan-o-cha, if he so wishes, can continue to head the government post-election.

 

Dissenting voices have proposed that a way must be found to ensure sure that the genuine representatives of the public will –  MPs elected by the people – should be running the government after the polls, instead of letting the military brass continue to call the shots. 

 

Hence the not-so-subtle suggestion from a deputy leader of the Democrat Party and a senior member of Pheu Thai during a panel discussion over the weekend that perhaps the two major rivals should consider undertaking the “impossible mission” of forming the next government – or else they would be accused of playing the role of military lackeys.

 

The immediate reactions were predictable. Leaders from both parties were quick to pour cold water on the idea. One side said the two parties’ platforms were poles apart, making a coalition on that scale unlikely. The other side countered that such a proposition could confuse the voters – so much so that their party’s expectation of victory in the upcoming election could be seriously undermined.

 

Being polite, both sides said it was premature to discuss a possible alliance between the two parties to torpedo the chance of a non-MP prime minister leading the next government.

 

There are more immediate concerns for the parties, with concern growing they might not be able to meet the deadline of January 5 to review their membership databases. Under the new rules, political parties face being disbanded if they cannot produce the required membership on time.

 

And while the junta maintains the ban on political gatherings, it seems impossible to even raise the issue of a new, unprecedented political alliance.

 

But ask a veteran political science academic such as Dr Anek Laothammathat, who chairs the Political Reform Committee, about the issue and his answer is surprisingly down-to-earth.

 

“I have talked to a lot of politicians recently. They are all ready to follow the new rules and accept the outcome of the elections. All they want is to make sure the election will take place. So, the proposed grand coalition between the two rival parties isn’t all that unlikely.”

 

Anek added: “Politicians are very innovative people. They can do things that may seem out of the ordinary. After all, isn’t politics supposed to be the art of the impossible?”

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30332834

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-11-30

[Samui Bodoh]

There are several very good reasons for the parties to consider a 'grand coalition' after the election; that is a discussion for later. However, anything that could weaken the influence of the military on the body politic in Thailand is a good thing in my book, even if only for the reason of competence in governing.

 

There is also a reasonable option of running on a platform of NOT forming a government, but running to become the 'Loyal Opposition'. Many believe that the current government has so skewed things that running a government isn't really possible, so why take the blame if you can't reasonably accomplish much? Further, the next government is going to have very, very limited room as the current rulers have spent so much money that there will be few monies left later; why not let the military deal the economic problems they have created? Finally, the conditions which led to the rise of the major parties, especially the 'Reds', aren't going away soon. Perhaps a better approach to politics in the immediate future is to criticize the hell out of the Greenies for a lack of competence, and keep your powder dry for the ensuing election.

 

Many people think that the military is in the supreme position, but I am of the opinion that the parties have more power than they think. The military is very powerful, but they need credibility, competence and legitimacy; they don't seem to be able to get these things on their own.

 

43 minutes ago, webfact said:

...political science academic such as Dr Anek Laothammathat, who chairs the Political Reform Committee... 

..."After all, isn’t politics supposed to be the art of the impossible?”

 

BTW, it is deeply worrying that a Professor of Political Science and the Chair of the Political Reform Committee doesn't seem to know that Bismark's observation was that "politics is the art of the possible.".

 

 

 

[Ossy]

59 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

There are several very good reasons for the parties to consider a 'grand coalition' after the election; that is a discussion for later. However, anything that could weaken the influence of the military on the body politic in Thailand is a good thing in my book, even if only for the reason of competence in governing.

 

There is also a reasonable option of running on a platform of NOT forming a government, but running to become the 'Loyal Opposition'. Many believe that the current government has so skewed things that running a government isn't really possible, so why take the blame if you can't reasonably accomplish much? Further, the next government is going to have very, very limited room as the current rulers have spent so much money that there will be few monies left later; why not let the military deal the economic problems they have created? Finally, the conditions which led to the rise of the major parties, especially the 'Reds', aren't going away soon. Perhaps a better approach to politics in the immediate future is to criticize the hell out of the Greenies for a lack of competence, and keep your powder dry for the ensuing election.

 

Many people think that the military is in the supreme position, but I am of the opinion that the parties have more power than they think. The military is very powerful, but they need credibility, competence and legitimacy; they don't seem to be able to get these things on their own.

 

 

BTW, it is deeply worrying that a Professor of Political Science and the Chair of the Political Reform Committee doesn't seem to know that Bismark's observation was that "politics is the art of the possible.".

 

 

 

Valid comment, as always, SB. I'm sure that Dr Anek made the Bismark reference very much tongue-in-cheek . . . most mischievous but, in the current Thai political cauldron - the impossible - most apt.

 

I'm still going with my 'crazy' gut-feeling that the election date will be brought forward, possibly as early as April, and for two selfish reasons, as far as Prayut is concerned. One, it lessons the time for his popularity to fall even further, and, two and most crucially, it would seriously lessen the time for other 'interested' groups to organise themselves. Was there some sort of promise, by P1, that other parties would get a minimum organising period - 6mths, maybe - after the organic laws are set in stone? That would fly in the face of my early election prediction but, since broken promises have become normal behaviour for the little people, who knows?

 

But, in response to the '2-party' headline, I think it would be the very best thing to help Thailand to get back on its feet, with the minimum in-fighting and cross-party feuding. Bring it on, I say.

[Ricardo]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

2. How do you know Abhisit and whoever is really running Pheu Thai will agree to that formula?

 

Does the former-PM really call the shots for the Dems ? 

 

 

[Samui Bodoh]

2 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

 

Does the former-PM really call the shots for the Dems ? 

 

 

 

Er... Ahem... Did he ever?

 

[mikebell]

Both parties same same but different.  They just want to get their snouts in the trough.

[canuckamuck]

I'd say it is the only shot they got at blocking totalitarianism. Problem is that they need to encourage the rural north and east to be involved, something that is completely opposite to what the Dems have done in the past. They have mostly been a movement to oppress the rural vote than anything else.

Still I am all for an orange solution.

[yellowboat]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Thinking the unthinkable: A coalition of the two big parties

It is reconciliation.  What is worse autocracy or dealing with a competitor ?  If the Dems can stop themselves from inviting coups, Thailand may have a bright future. 

[Samui Bodoh]

I agree that any sort of coalition between the 'Reds' and the Dems is very problematic (although perhaps desirable) for the bases of each respective party, but I think everyone is thinking too much; there isn't a need for a coalition.

 

A more realistic, a (perhaps) more manageable route would be a pact to unify in opposition to the Greens. And leave it there for the immediate future.

 

Done well, a pact against the Greens and in support of 'Democracy and Civilian Rule' could incorporate an agreement to be against the Greens, as well as to declare that any party who politically supports the Greens are political foes of BOTH the Reds and Yellows. Yes, it might cause a few problems down the road when it is time to form a government, but politicians are actually quite good at sorting out that kind of thing. If Dr. Anek had gotten his quote right, it would have been "Politics is the art of the possible"; a deal could be made AFTER the Greens are pushed aside.

 

I would maintain that the immediate objective should be to try to remove or at least marginalize the Greens first, then let everything else take care of itself.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Samui Bodoh
Need More Coffee

[hansnl]

1 hour ago, mikebell said:

Both parties same same but different.  They just want to get their snouts in the trough.

Politico's go into politics for power, for money, or for a combination of the two.

And, if comparing to governments before, did they do any better?

[Ossy]

50 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I'd say it is the only shot they got at blocking totalitarianism. Problem is that they need to encourage the rural north and east to be involved, something that is completely opposite to what the Dems have done in the past. They have mostly been a movement to oppress the rural vote than anything else.

Still I am all for an orange solution.

Yes,  huge differences, both in culture and agendas that could only be bridged by massive compromise by both sides.

Someone needs to be clever enough to draw up an agenda, listing all the needs, ideals and wishes of people, across the entire nation . . . an agenda that would be seen by ALL to be far better than having the Junta-threat hanging over every issue of debate.

[chainarong]

Bingo right first time , Unthinkable...........................

[PoorSucker]

Never going to happen. 

The Hakkas and the Hainese distrust each other since generations. 

 

Thai politics is all about Chinese clan influence. 

[Ossy]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"Done well, a pact against the Greens and in support of 'Democracy and Civilian Rule' could incorporate an agreement to be against the Greens, as well as to declare that any party who politically supports the Greens are political foes of BOTH the Reds and Yellows."

Sounds like a recipe for the 'politically impossible' to me (apologies, again, to Mr Bismark)

 

Yes, it might cause a few problems down the road when it is time to form a government, but politicians are actually quite good at sorting out that kind of thing. If Dr. Anek had gotten his quote right, it would have been "Politics is the art of the possible"; a deal could be made AFTER the Greens are pushed aside.

Again, you're overlooking the inevitable squabbling of the red and yellow top-dogs, who will want their say on every little issue that presents an opportunity to show their dominance . . . sorry, it's just human nature that neither coalition nor pact can remove from the equation. At least with a coalition, the big mouths must remain closed.

 

I would maintain that the immediate objective should be to try to remove or at least marginalize the Greens first, then let the everything else take care of itself.

Again, I think you're wrong, not to see the likelihood of red v yellow battles, here.

Hooray . . . for once I disagree with you. Your 'pact' route sounds awful complicated and, in my view, almost certain to be marred by red v yellow squabbling on nearly every issue that arises. There will always be idealistic and cultural differences that a pact won't be able to keep the lid on, whereas a coalition - Canuckamuck's Orange party - would be seen by the Greens to be a far stronger opposition.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Ossy
error

[Samui Bodoh]

21 minutes ago, Ossy said:

Hooray . . . for once I disagree with you. Your 'pact' route sounds awful complicated and, in my view, almost certain to be marred by red v yellow squabbling on nearly every issue that arises. There will always be idealistic and cultural differences that a pact won't be able to keep the lid on, whereas a coalition - Canuckamuck's Orange party - would be seen by the Greens to be a far stronger opposition.

Well, it is about bloody time you disagreed with me!!! 

 

Sorry, but I don't think we actually disagree very much; I think the difference between what I have written and what you have written is mostly scheduling.

 

Simply put, I don't believe there is time to create a workable coalition pact before an election, assuming that it happens roughly when promised. And to be frank, I am not sure that a coalition agreement is possible at all; that is why I suggest something smaller, shorter-term and more manageable. The goal of trying to defeat the Greens is perhaps possible, the goal of uniting the two different parties may not be. Face the Greens together, then fight each other...

 

There is another important reason that I do not agree with the idea of a pact before an election. Due to the intricacies of the new election system, it is better if the two parties run as competitors rather than allies. The combo method of constituencies and list means that one party will likely sweep the constituencies in an area, but other parties will collect some of the 'list' seats. If there is a pact against the Greens, better to have one party win constituency seats while the other gets the 'list' seats; the end result would be a stronger front against the Greens. If there is a pact going into the election, other parties might get the'list' seats to the detriment of the anti-Green pact.

 

I love speculating about politics!

 

[jayboy]

Yes,  huge differences, both in culture and agendas that could only be bridged by massive compromise by both sides.
Someone needs to be clever enough to draw up an agenda, listing all the needs, ideals and wishes of people, across the entire nation . . . an agenda that would be seen by ALL to be far better than having the Junta-threat hanging over every issue of debate.

I’m not sure you are right and I think you are incorrectly conflating the redshirt movement with Phuea Thai.I think there is not much real ideological difference between the two main parties - the struggle has been mostly been about power.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Ossy]

46 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Well, it is about bloody time you disagreed with me!!! 

 

Sorry, but I don't think we actually disagree very much; I think the difference between what I have written and what you have written is mostly scheduling.

 

Simply put, I don't believe there is time to create a workable coalition pact before an election, assuming that it happens roughly when promised. And to be frank, I am not sure that a coalition agreement is possible at all; that is why I suggest something smaller, shorter-term and more manageable. The goal of trying to defeat the Greens is perhaps possible, the goal of uniting the two different parties may not be. Face the Greens together, then fight each other...

 

There is another important reason that I do not agree with the idea of a pact before an election. Due to the intricacies of the new election system, it is better if the two parties run as competitors rather than allies. The combo method of constituencies and list means that one party will likely sweep the constituencies in an area, but other parties will collect some of the 'list' seats. If there is a pact against the Greens, better to have one party win constituency seats while the other gets the 'list' seats; the end result would be a stronger front against the Greens. If there is a pact going into the election, other parties might get the'list' seats to the detriment of the anti-Green pact.

 

I love speculating about politics!

 

Beggar me . . . you're absolutely right. I think my breakfast coffee was still having its Golden Dreams effect on me, earlier. OK . . . a pact it is. Now then, who's gonna be man enough to volunteer to boss it?

[PatOngo]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

A coalition of the two big parties

Do they make trough's big enough for 2 parties? That's a lot of swill for so many snouts!

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, PoorSucker said:

Never going to happen. 

The Hakkas and the Hainese distrust each other since generations. 

 

Thai politics is all about Chinese clan influence. 

 

Indeed. And also about some very big egos who want absolute control of the trough.

 

Whilst aligning against the current government might appeal to the now out of work and away from the trough politicians, they would be squabbling like spoiled children over who got what if they managed to regain civilian power and likely immediately split into old factions very quickly.

 

Cynical perhaps, but political parties are not similar to character to Western political parties. They are simply vehicles for coalitions of clans.

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Indeed. And also about some very big egos who want absolute control of the trough.

 

Whilst aligning against the current government might appeal to the now out of work and away from the trough politicians, they would be squabbling like spoiled children over who got what if they managed to regain civilian power and likely immediately split into old factions very quickly.

 

Cynical perhaps, but political parties are not similar to character to Western political parties. They are simply vehicles for coalitions of clans.

True but still better than a illegal seizure of power and a non accountable junta government that governs through intimidation and blatantly feeding off the trough with immunity and an amnesty. Did I also mentions the coalition of the Band of Brothers, their families and cronies. 

[jayboy]

4 hours ago, PoorSucker said:

Never going to happen. 

The Hakkas and the Hainese distrust each other since generations. 

 

Thai politics is all about Chinese clan influence. 

First time I've seen this important point made on the forum.Thank you:it's critical and rarely mentioned.

 

The late Benedict Anderson covered this ground when discussing Thailand in a piece bristling with intelligence and insight.

 

https://prachatai.com/english/node/2694

[GarryP]

47 minutes ago, jayboy said:

First time I've seen this important point made on the forum.Thank you:it's critical and rarely mentioned.

 

The late Benedict Anderson covered this ground when discussing Thailand in a piece bristling with intelligence and insight.

 

https://prachatai.com/english/node/2694

Interesting article. Thanks for posting the link.

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Problem is that

... the 2017 Constitution and Constitutional Court have been "cooked" by the junta to defeat legally any political opposition by military intrusion.

For example, NCPO remains active and Prayut retains Article 44 until a government has been installed, ie., referred by Prayut for endorsement. As such Prayut also has the power to decide by refusal the cabinet nominees.

For the two largest parties to control the government they would have to violate the Constitution, in effect commit a political coup.

The scenario in the article is complete fantasy and not worthy of conjecture except as a bedtime story.

[Samui Bodoh]

1 hour ago, jayboy said:

First time I've seen this important point made on the forum.Thank you:it's critical and rarely mentioned.

 

The late Benedict Anderson covered this ground when discussing Thailand in a piece bristling with intelligence and insight.

 

https://prachatai.com/english/node/2694

Many thanks for the link!

 

My MA Advisor was a student/disciple of Ben Anderson so I could almost hear her voice as I read it. I also remember the endless arguments/discussions that I had with her regarding SE Asia!

 

The next year or so will be very interesting; even though I often disagreed with him, I wish Ben Anderson was still around to help us all make sense of it.

 

Cheers

[jayboy]

14 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Many thanks for the link!

 

My MA Advisor was a student/disciple of Ben Anderson so I could almost hear her voice as I read it. I also remember the endless arguments/discussions that I had with her regarding SE Asia!

 

The next year or so will be very interesting; even though I often disagreed with him, I wish Ben Anderson was still around to help us all make sense of it.

 

Cheers

Anderson's scorn for the cowardly urban middle class is withering.

 

"It would be difficult to expect anything from a capital city middle class of this type.  It timidly supported the demonstrations of October 73, but turned its back on the students in 1976.  It timidly supported the early Thaksin social policies, but very soon turned against him, and now expresses itself through noisy support for the monarchy and the Yellows.   I should say that in this way the Bangkok bourgeoisie is ...... timid, selfish, uncultured, consumerist, and  without any decent vision of the future of the country. "

 

[Sid Celery]

I'm not sure Brother Abhisit would be allowed to partner with the hated Red Kwais, even if he wanted to. I strongly suspect that the bosses of the string-puller of the army and the bosses of the string-puller of the Dems party are in fact one and the same. Despite the undoubted factionalism that will exist, money is money and that's all they really care about as a means of accumulating power and therefore, status. Their uniting characteristics lay in their venality and their hatred of Thaksin, for all of the right and wrong reasons.

 

If that is so, then I see not prospect at all for a coalition between PT and the Dems, to force the army out. Or for any other reason.

 

As much as I have scant respect for Thais, I think it is Thais who will have to stop grovelling and ensure this is the last Junta Government Thailand has. with absolutely all that implies..

Edited November 30, 2017 by Sid Celery

[Thailand]

This  scenario has already raised on this forum a number of times recently. It is the only way to put a spike in the militaries pre loaded government so it is unlikely to be allowed even if it was viable. The military will not be relinquishing power any time soon and the driver is likely to remain the same.

[starky]

Since when was the junta "outgoing"? 

 

[baboon]

19 minutes ago, starky said:

Since when was the junta "outgoing"? 

 

...In any sense of the word?

[YetAnother]

14 hours ago, webfact said:

Just say that you’re almost certain the two major parties, Pheu Thai and the Democrats, will form a grand coalition government after the next election

not possible; boils down to greater good vs. personal perceived need; guess which one wins every time ?