The Battle Between Populism And Privilege In Thailand

[clausewitz]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/democracy/news/a...jectid=10531139

Thaksin Shinawatra is shaping up to be the Juan Peron of Thailand, with the significant difference that he is a rich Peron. The billions he earned in his telecommunications business enabled him to rise to the top of Thai politics, and he used his power to shift wealth and power systematically from the rich to the poor.

Like a latter-day Peron, he made decisive changes in government spending patterns, and the poor loved him for it.

Thaksin's human rights record was abominable, but he was three times elected Prime Minister, in 2001, 2005, and 2006. However, he was overthrown by the Army later in 2006 after street protests paid for by the rich and privileged.

His party was disbanded and he and 110 senior members were banned from politics for five years. But the game is far from over, and Thaksin may haunt Thai politics for as long as Peron haunted Argentina.

Thaksin went into exile after the coup, mainly to avoid the corruption charges (perhaps trumped up, perhaps not) that threatened to jail him and his wife Pojaman for years. But when the generals allowed a return to democracy last year the People's Power Party (PPP), a proxy for his disbanded Thai Rak Thai party, won a majority of seats and formed a coalition government led by Thaksin's political ally, PPP leader Samak Sundaravej.

This was awkward for the Army, which now had to take orders from the allies of the people whom it had ousted in the 2006 coup, and it got even more awkward when Thaksin returned to Thailand last February. Within months the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), the group whose anti-Thaksin demonstrations had triggered the military coup of 2006, was out on the streets again demanding Samak's resignation.

He was only Thaksin's stooge, they said, and PPP had only won the election by fooling or bribing millions of ignorant rural voters. Which brings us to the heart of the matter.

Thaksin was a populist who won the support of the poor by promising them debt relief, cheap loans, improved health care and other services that were not previously part of the currency of Thai politics. This is hardly against the rules in other democracies, but in Thailand it infuriated the political elite and their mostly urban, middle-class supporters.

The peasants, instead of obediently voting for the traditional rural allies of the urban elite, were voting for Thaksin and their own economic interest. The response of the urban elite was to create the People's Alliance for Democracy - and in Bangkok, an island of shining prosperity in a country that is still mostly poor peasants, they have many supporters.

But the PAD has nothing to do with democracy. In fact, it claims that the ballot box gives too much weight to the ill-educated rural poor, whose votes can easily be "bought" (that is, won) with promises of government largesse.

The movement's leaders are less clear on what they want in place of democracy, but they want Parliament to be "reformed" so that most lawmakers are appointed (by them and their friends) rather than elected. Their arrogance is breathtaking - but they may not win a decisive victory. The king, who backed the coup in 2006, has stayed neutral this time, and the Army chief, General Anupong Paochinda, insists the military will not stage a new coup.

The present crisis began on August 26 when a mob of PAD supporters seized the Prime Minister's offices, Government House, which they have occupied ever since. Samak Sundaravej refused to resign, saying "the PAD is an illegal group who have seized the Government House and declared their victory. How can that be correct?"

Samak declared a state of emergency on Monday, September 2, after one person was killed in street clashes between PPP and PAD supporters in Bangkok. On Thursday he promised a national referendum to resolve the crisis. Since rural people are still a large majority, Samak will win the referendum easily, but that will not end the crisis because the PAD does not recognise the validity of rural votes.

Thaksin, who retreated abroad again last month after his wife was sentenced to three years in jail for income tax evasion, is still enormously popular with the rural poor, and could count on winning any free election in which he is allowed to stand.

So he probably won't be allowed to stand. It's too bad that a figure as divisive as Thaksin was the first to try to open Thai politics up to the concerns of the poor, but a less flamboyant and abrasive politician would probably never have tried. What remains to be seen is whether the PAD can shut the door again, and for how long.

*

[Boater]

excellent article!!! ......

[jumnien]

For once the truth is told; should last about ten more minutes before it is removed.

[Samuian]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/democracy/news/a...jectid=10531139

Thaksin Shinawatra is shaping up to be the Juan Peron of Thailand, with the significant difference that he is a rich Peron. The billions he earned in his telecommunications business enabled him to rise to the top of Thai politics, and he used his power to shift wealth and power systematically from the rich to the poor.

Like a latter-day Peron, he made decisive changes in government spending patterns, and the poor loved him for it.

Thaksin's human rights record was abominable, but he was three times elected Prime Minister, in 2001, 2005, and 2006. However, he was overthrown by the Army later in 2006 after street protests paid for by the rich and privileged.

His party was disbanded and he and 110 senior members were banned from politics for five years. But the game is far from over, and Thaksin may haunt Thai politics for as long as Peron haunted Argentina.

Thaksin went into exile after the coup, mainly to avoid the corruption charges (perhaps trumped up, perhaps not) that threatened to jail him and his wife Pojaman for years. But when the generals allowed a return to democracy last year the People's Power Party (PPP), a proxy for his disbanded Thai Rak Thai party, won a majority of seats and formed a coalition government led by Thaksin's political ally, PPP leader Samak Sundaravej.

This was awkward for the Army, which now had to take orders from the allies of the people whom it had ousted in the 2006 coup, and it got even more awkward when Thaksin returned to Thailand last February. Within months the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), the group whose anti-Thaksin demonstrations had triggered the military coup of 2006, was out on the streets again demanding Samak's resignation.

He was only Thaksin's stooge, they said, and PPP had only won the election by fooling or bribing millions of ignorant rural voters. Which brings us to the heart of the matter.

Thaksin was a populist who won the support of the poor by promising them debt relief, cheap loans, improved health care and other services that were not previously part of the currency of Thai politics. This is hardly against the rules in other democracies, but in Thailand it infuriated the political elite and their mostly urban, middle-class supporters.

It not against the rules and this is NOT why he had to leave the country, and certainly none of the 5 Arrest warrants are isued on a single account of the before said!

The peasants, instead of obediently voting for the traditional rural allies of the urban elite, were voting for Thaksin and their own economic interest.

This is simply wrong they did vote for say newins wing/party etc. and the TRT or later PPP formed a coalition with them!

The response of the urban elite was to create the People's Alliance for Democracy -

Wrong again! The PAD did establish before 2006 and it's roots go way back to 1973!

and in Bangkok, an island of shining prosperity in a country that is still mostly poor peasants, they have many supporters.

But the PAD has nothing to do with democracy. In fact, it claims that the ballot box gives too much weight to the ill-educated rural poor, whose votes can easily be "bought" (that is, won) with promises of government largesse.

Its an allegation, as the PAD is the counterbalance of a through and through corrupt governing body and wishes to change this - and invites the public to PARTAKE on "new politics"

The movement's leaders are less clear on what they want in place of democracy, but they want Parliament to be "reformed" so that most lawmakers are appointed (by them and their friends) rather than elected. Their arrogance is breathtaking - but they may not win a decisive victory. The king, who backed the coup in 2006, has stayed neutral this time, and the Army chief, General Anupong Paochinda, insists the military will not stage a new coup.

The arrogance of the banned and right now in power politicians is not breathtaking?

The present crisis began on August 26 when a mob of PAD supporters seized the Prime Minister's offices, Government House, which they have occupied ever since. Samak Sundaravej refused to resign, saying "the PAD is an illegal group who have seized the Government House and declared their victory. How can that be correct?"

Samak declared a state of emergency on Monday, September 2, after one person was killed in street clashes between PPP and PAD supporters in Bangkok. On Thursday he promised a national referendum to resolve the crisis. Since rural people are still a large majority, Samak will win the referendum easily, but that will not end the crisis because the PAD does not recognise the validity of rural votes.

Thaksin, who retreated abroad again last month after his wife was sentenced to three years in jail for income tax evasion, is still enormously popular with the rural poor, and could count on winning any free election in which he is allowed to stand.

He fled!

So he probably won't be allowed to stand. It's too bad that a figure as divisive as Thaksin was the first to try to open Thai politics up to the concerns of the poor, but a less flamboyant and abrasive politician would probably never have tried. What remains to be seen is whether the PAD can shut the door again, and for how long.

*

This article.... is regarding the "It's too bad that a figure as divisive as Thaksin" line... is a nice PR stnt!

If not I highly question the reporters point!

400.000 have to face charges on credit default!

Puket Clinic reported just these days - that there is ONE Doctor left - that is because of his "succesful health campaign"!?

This "article" isn't worth a single bit, because it distorts the facts and tells half truths!

[bkkjames]

Actually there is not much of anything in this article that hasn't been said before, but perhaps its all new to the audience it was written for.

Excellent journalism...no, anyone with two hours could google enough already published news clips and combine them to come up with what was written in this piece.

[BSJ]

Interesting to read the views of someone who is far away from the fun and games but has a balanced view.

[john b good]

Interesting to read the views of someone who is far away from the fun and games but has a balanced view.

Be OK if they knew what they were talking about

[Gravelrash]

Taksin did have his positive side as did he his negatives. Suspect though empowering the poor as a voting block hard for the established elites to win back was the real reason for his ousting. Corruption is rife in every level of society and he was no different in that respect. I think many just don't remember what previous governments may have gotten up to or simply it wasn't as widely reported as Taksin. At any rate I am just an observer, it is a Thai issue. Can'y work out why some foreigners get so worked up about the whole thing.

[Denim]

excellent article!!! ......

Agreed....although its true what bkkjames says...nothing new. Maybe it takes the news a long time to filter into the NZ papers.

Its too bad that the silent majority don't speak up for themselves more instead of letting PAD propaganda and money bully their way to the front of peoples attention in the press and other media all the time.

[Scott]

Yup. Excellent piece. It does have it's bias, but one thing is for sure, we are not going back to the way things were very easily.

[steveromagnino]

Yup. Excellent piece. It does have it's bias, but one thing is for sure, we are not going back to the way things were very easily.

so inaccurate about so many things; I suspect the writer has never been to Thailand.

As for this alleged rural voting block, the 'elites' can get their entire vote if they wanted tomorrow.

You just have to be willing to join hands with alledged gangsters like Newin, Sanoh, Wattana etc etc.

Those are the same people who have run their electorates as dictators for the last 20 years. Securing their faction involves giving them a skim of the government budget, and there is an established order of government departments that range in level of skim.

How come some people cannot understand how Thai politics works????

We are reaaaaaallly digging deep that it now takes a self opinionated journo in Auckland writing about the coup for us to start thinking.....wow. EVen the most staunch PAD hater cannot possibly consider this article to be at all positive about anything because it is like reading the musings of a 5 year old.

Edited October 2, 2008 by steveromagnino

[DP25]

Yawn. Amazing how the overseas press keeps on repeating the lie that Thaksin is enormously popular and that he would win any election, considering his proxy party got only 36% of the vote. The vast majority of Thais are against Thaksin, his proxy party won only because elections in Thailand only require a plurality of the vote rather than a majority, and the anti-Thaksin vote was split among several parties.

[Andrew Hicks]

Yup. Excellent piece. It does have it's bias, but one thing is for sure, we are not going back to the way things were very easily.

The way things were when? Weren't they always thus?

Thaksin initiated major shifts of resources from the city to the countryside but why?

Was it because he believed the rural poor should at last be taken into consideration or was it cynically to create a powerful political constituency for himself... a form of vote buying where you use government coffers to foot the bill?

And was it to put himself in a position of power to favour his own business interests and plunder as much as he could?

The past history of Thai politics perhaps raises a presumption that those who seek power do not do so from altruistic motives.

[lannarebirth]

That's what a good PR firm can do for you.

[citizen33]

As for this alleged rural voting block, the 'elites' can get their entire vote if they wanted tomorrow.

Whatever oversimplifications the article may or may not contain, I think that it is right about the new voting block. I wonder if Steve has talked to people in the villages? What he describes is the old way, but the genie got out of the bottle in 2001 and won't go back now.

[Scott]

When Thaksin was in power I really, really didn't like him and never had anything good to say about him--except that he was smart enough to figure out how to get elected. Of course, he worked the populace to his advantage and he did it rather well. It's far from a new concept, but it sure did work to his advantage--and if you ask a lot of them, to their advantage as well.

So, yes, the genie is out of the bottle. For good or bad, that's just the way it is.

[elkangorito]

By historical standards, most dictators get elected because the guy before them was disliked (he was "voted out") & this new guy has some wonderful ideas &/OR promises truck loads of money to those who desire money the most (the poor).

After a while, the "elected guy" starts to control the media in a heavy handed way. From this point on, everything goes downhill. If the "new guy" can't easily control the media (in a 1st world country for example), he will then slowly but surely try to control the masses in some other way. Usually this means introducing or strengthening sedition laws & then perhaps weakening things like unions (the rights of workers). In the USA, it was the Patriot Act (introduced overnight).

In Australia, the previous Prime Minister (John Howard) did these things. The first thing he did was to suck up to George W & within the blink of an eye, instigated ways to sell uranium to other countries (India) who were not signatories of the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Actually, a previous Australian Prime Minister (Bob Hawke) legislated that Australian uranium would not be sold to countries that were not signatories of the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Anyway, John "I'm Georges deputy sheriff" Howard, changed all of that due to an Australian electoral majority that gave him almost absolute power within the senate.

Not long after this, he then stripped Australian workers of most of their "working rights" with something called "Work Choices" (aka Worst Choices). Essentially, he was turning Australia into America...no rights for workers & no money for overtime, "do as you are told you peasants" etc.

Nonetheless, if John Howard was in control of a 3rd world country, I'm sure he would make an almost perfect dictator. He was taught well by the British ideal..."Don't kill too many slaves otherwise you won't have anybody to do your menial tasks. One must keep an appropriate balance of fear & altruism in order to avoid a revolution". He was classed as a "right wing" politician & he was into "God". Actually, why are so many "right wing" politicians, who always rave on about god etc, the first to want to drop bombs on people? Isn't this against the "god" thing?

It's only the dumb dictators that rule with an iron fist OR it's only the incredibly programmed masses (by religion or culture) that easily succumb to the ways of such nasty dictators.

In any case, Toxin was clearly an "up & coming" dictator. This could be easily seen by his heavy handedness with any disagreeing media as well as his methods for dealing with a certain perceived "drug problem" in Thailand, in which thousands of people were murdered to make Toxin (& his cohorts) look good. He was clearly only some steps away from being another Mugabe.

Hitler had some great ideas too but went "power crazy" (like they all seem to do).

[permanent_disorder]

We are reaaaaaallly digging deep that it now takes a self opinionated journo in Auckland writing about the coup for us to start thinking.....wow. EVen the most staunch PAD hater cannot possibly consider this article to be at all positive about anything because it is like reading the musings of a 5 year old.

here. don't see why it get all this praise. is just the standard article you can read in your daily about a country far away. an article in thhe oslo times, lissabon observer or tel aviv mirror will not look that different. even not worth to point out the flaws, it's a summery for those far away.

you must see it with that distance, about bolivia, hungary or morocco we will not get better informated. simple2.0.

little bit odd the way to bring peron in relation, half-hearted done and for a moment i thought he see Pojaman as Evita, but not really. Thaksin, who retreated abroad again last month after his wife was sentenced to three years in jail for income tax evasion, is still enormously popular with the rural poor, and could count on winning any free election...

for a split second i thought it's Pojaman, the popular. Pojaman. har, har, that was my funny moment with the text (almost saw sj posting picture of both ladies)

.

and why open a new topic for that? it's not even new in print. published 3 weeks ago.

the applause & bravo bravo mob reminds me on that horror peace of journalism:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Mirror-60-Mi...es-t211045.html

it's about a dream version something like the PAD could be, maybe. what you think about that?

[thaihome]

As for this alleged rural voting block, the 'elites' can get their entire vote if they wanted tomorrow.

Whatever oversimplifications the article may or may not contain, I think that it is right about the new voting block. I wonder if Steve has talked to people in the villages? What he describes is the old way, but the genie got out of the bottle in 2001 and won't go back now.

The rural poor are still voting exactly they way they have the past 50 years. They vote for who the local bigshot tells them to. There is no new voting block. That is a myth perpetuated by the TRT/PPP which foreign reporters too lazy to do actual ground level research have fully bought into.

Have you ever witnessed a local election? I did witness the election in 2001 as my wife had an uncle running to the TAO at that time (he won). The vote at the MP level was the same as it always was, Sanoh. No one even talked about that. Now the local TAO election was hotly contested, because whoever won that got control of the 1 million baht loan fund. Is that a populist movement or democracy in action? I don't think so.

TH

[Samuian]

Taksin did have his positive side as did he his negatives. Suspect though empowering the poor as a voting block hard for the established elites to win back was the real reason for his ousting. Corruption is rife in every level of society and he was no different in that respect. I think many just don't remember what previous governments may have gotten up to or simply it wasn't as widely reported as Taksin. At any rate I am just an observer, it is a Thai issue. Can'y work out why some foreigners get so worked up about the whole thing.

I am sorry if things were all good he wouldn't have been ousted, what exactly were his "positive" sides?

All this dictatorship bs and going back, it's all about "the elite" grabbing for power now, is out of hand - he rode on simple populism, made promises, handed out some money, loans which didn't belong to him and used the voice of the rural people.

[kmart]

A musical would be nice. Khunying Pojaman as "Evita" anyone?

[Howsitgoin]

As for this alleged rural voting block, the 'elites' can get their entire vote if they wanted tomorrow.

How come some people cannot understand how Thai politics works????

You can't expect a journalistic article to have the same depth as an academic paper.

More and more academic voices though do admit that politics in Thailand are in the process of change. Even Baker has now reversed his long held position on vote buying, money politics, etc.

Korn has admitted that even though in some areas in the North they have spent more than PPP but still could not get voters to elect them. Puaeh Pandin has spent much more than PPP on vote buying, yet failed to make inroads.

And the elites are more than willing to join hands with anyone who might bring them votes. Or haven't the Democrats not formed coalition governments with some of them? Have they not had their own godfathers, and still have?

Has Sanoh Tienthong not broken with Thaksin and joined PAD before the coup, and PAD welcomed him?

And we still might see that Newin might leave PPP and join Democrats - bet that all will be forgotten, and he will get a hero's welcome...

I believe that we have to stop analysing Thai politics solely from the view of elitist power struggles, but also have to count in the rising political consciousnes off the rural poor and the newly developing urban proletarian class. Their aspirations are clearly there, and presently they are reflected in their choice - PPP. There is obviously still much of patronage politics you mentioned, but this is in a process of change.

Minimising these sectors to being simple followers of patronage, uneducated and bought does not anymore do justice to current social developments. Which the Democrat party and their PAD friends have completely missed, and therefore operate on completely false analyses.

Therefore my question is: How can some people not understand social changes in contemporary Thailand?

One reason is, that even though the increased publication of academic research, there is still a huge vacuum on elementary research into many aspects. And, in the present climate of increased political extremism in Thailand, very little objectivity is left, and polemics dominates the debate.

Additionally, a huge problem are the almost unbridgeable class barriers of Thai society.

[Howsitgoin]

The rural poor are still voting exactly they way they have the past 50 years.

I am very sorry to disagree here.

Anecdotal evidence is countered by academic research. Andrew Walker has done a very interesting field research that touches this subject - read it.

Baker - the researcher who has for years defined "godfather politics" (and has been disputed) has now reversed his position.

Korn has a few days ago openly admitted that money politics is not all there is, and neither is vote buying.

Read Ungpakorn's papers on this subject.

Society is in a process of change, especially rural poor and the from this sector recruited newly developing urban proletariat. The last years have seen a rise in political consciousness, reflected by TRT/PPP as they were/are the only party that has seen the political marketing potential of these developments, while all other parties are still struggling with accepting these developments.

You cannot discount these clear facts.

[thaihome]

I am very sorry to disagree here.

Anecdotal evidence is countered by academic research. Andrew Walker has done a very interesting field research that touches this subject - read it.

Baker - the researcher who has for years defined "godfather politics" (and has been disputed) has now reversed his position.

Korn has a few days ago openly admitted that money politics is not all there is, and neither is vote buying.

Read Ungpakorn's papers on this subject.

Society is in a process of change, especially rural poor and the from this sector recruited newly developing urban proletariat. The last years have seen a rise in political consciousness, reflected by TRT/PPP as they were/are the only party that has seen the political marketing potential of these developments, while all other parties are still struggling with accepting these developments.

You cannot discount these clear facts.

So you are saying that despite the FACT the PPP is made up entirely of factions controlled by the "Godfathers" that have ruled the rural areas for generations, the people are voting for the PPP because they think it has their best interest at heart and not becasue they are being told to (note I did not say being directly paid to)? Maybe you can explain why the provinces controlled by Sanoh, did not vote for the PPP, despite being demographically just like the provinces that voted for the PPP? They voted for Sanoh’s party (whatever it is he calls it these days, it is still the Wang Nam Yen), didn’t they?

I don’t disagree there are some activist in the rural areas that are fighting the old politics. I don’t think they are having much success and it is a very hazardous way of life.

Would be interested in reading some of your citations. Are they available in English?

TH

[Howsitgoin]

Conners_Hewison__2008_.pdf

Would be interested in reading some of your citations. Are they available in English?

TH

I am not talking in absolutes here.

No doubt that there is more than a fair amount of "godfathers" and patronage politics involved with TRT/PPP. No government in Thailand can presently govern without compromising with these factions. The Democrats could not either when they were in power, and still are massively involved in patronage politics in the South. Marc Askew has recently published a book on this subject.

It is a complicated subject that i can't simply outline in a short post here - massive researches have been performed, long papers have been written. I can only try to make people aware of the existence of such.

Patronage networks have not been discontinued, and are integral part of PPP, no doubt about that. But society is in a process of change (and not because of elitist struggles as always portrayed, PPP vs. PAD, because in many ways PAD is very much about re-inventing old networks of Army, Civil Service and certain semi-Sakdina elements). People have changed - not one village without poeple who have worked in foreign countries, who have not foreigners intermarried with locals.

The change from rural poor into urban labor force is a mostly unresearched social phenomenon, but with profound effects on politics.

a few links to relevant research:

Nelson's analyses on PAD:

http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc/WP87_07_MNelson.pdf

Bangkok Pundit's article on FCCT presentation on "New Politics":

http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/...itics-what.html

Unfortunately a very important link to some very good research does not function anymore, so i will try to upload it. Hope it works.

[Howsitgoin]

seems that it didn't work, i'll try again

Edited October 3, 2008 by Howsitgoin

[Howsitgoin]

one more try

Conners_Hewison__2008_.pdf

[permanent_disorder]

A musical would be nice. Khunying Pojaman as "Evita" anyone?

yeah, but not the real Pojaman as actress, but as character in the screen play. cast by the muppet show ensemble.

and why not as serial, each episode "Pojaman" as another first lady - Imelda Marcos, Yoko Ono, Sir Denis Thatcher, Elena Ceauşescu, Princess Soraya, a Winni Mandela & Graça Machel double feature and the rumoured but never shown Eva Braun episode, directed by Uwe Boll.

anyway, before the thaksin revisionists write the history new, i am looking for photos of thaksin with his special toy, a X-sign he hold up when he didn't like the question at a press conference.

this TVforum/news thread -Thaksin surprises reporters with X sign can help the one with short memory.

i tried to find some pictures but i wasn't sucessful. maybe someone with a private archive can help out.

[Plus]

Puaeh Pandin has spent much more than PPP on vote buying, yet failed to make inroads.

Just as newbies spending more money at Chatuchak don't necessarily buy more stuff.

Last elections were mostly about Thaksin legacy. Pua Paendin, if I remember correctly, even tired to present themselves as real heirs of TRT in their Isan campaigns. Not many people believed that, apparently.

Uncle Prachai is another example of a political neophit spending tons of money and getting absolutely nothing in return.

Thaksin was a populist who won the support of the poor by promising them debt relief, cheap loans, improved health care and other services that were not previously part of the currency of Thai politics. This is hardly against the rules in other democracies, but in Thailand it infuriated the political elite and their mostly urban, middle-class supporters.

I can't believe the author missed all the rants about Thaksin's corruption, and mentioned only hatred towards popular policies which I, personally, haven't noticed at all in these past three years.

he was three times elected Prime Minister, in 2001, 2005, and 2006.

2006 elections were never completed, and, what a coincidence, the author seems to be unaware of the massive fraud Thaksin and his party orchestrated in those elections. All they say is "he was elected". Duh.

That kind os article wouldn't fly in Thailand, better be published somewhere far far away.

[Howsitgoin]

Puaeh Pandin has spent much more than PPP on vote buying, yet failed to make inroads.

Just as newbies spending more money at Chatuchak don't necessarily buy more stuff.

Newbies?!

from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Motherland

Its most notable members include Thaksin's former foreign minister Surakiart Sathirathai, Suranand Vejjajiva and Preecha Laohaphongchana; it is composed of both former TRT members and former TRT opponents. Since former TRT members are banned from politics for five years, a non-TRT member will have to lead the party in the 2007 election.^[1] Suwit Khunkitti and Watchara Punnachet have been elected party leader and party's secretary general respectively. The party appointed Vatana Asavahame as the party chairman, and Police General Pracha Promnok as party chief adviser. General Panlop Pinmanee, adviser to the Internal Security Command Operation, accepted to become adviser to the party, overseeing security.^[2]