How Shrewd Underdog Became Top Dog; Pheu Thai

[webfact]

ANALYSIS

How shrewd underdog became top dog

By Thanitaya Tanapisutkul,

Opas Boolom

The Nation

Within two months, the Pheu Thai Party has seen a dramatic turnaround - from being a political underdog to the winner in yesterday's national election.

How did it achieve so much in such a short time?

The election results come as no surprise to those who know the Pheu Thai Party well. The successor of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai party founded by ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra possesses a combination of shrewd political strategy, voter-centric approach, unified campaign messages and marketing acumen.

The outgoing ruling Democrat Party was unable to match this collective onslaught. In quite a contrast, the Democrats didn't have a cohesive national election strategy but were merely tactical. The party didn't understand the mindset of the mass voters, including differences among supporters of the red shirts. It offered no vision in its election campaign, except borrowed populist overtones.

"We are a pro-change, pro-reform party," Dr Olarn Chaipravat, chief strategist of Pheu Thai's economic policy, said while summing up his party's unitary message to the voters. Such a pronounced campaign message touched base with urban poor, Northeasterners and even sections of academics and opinion leaders.

The nomination of Thaksin's sister - businesswoman Yingluck Shinawatra - as the party's prime-ministerial candidate was described by the chairman of a consumer-products company as "marketing genius".

Her nomination immediately toned down harshness towards the party brought about by Pheu Thai's selection of several red-shirt leaders on the party list. It was also hard for the rival Democrat Party to indulge in mudslinging against a woman, the way it could have done against male politicians.

Pheu Thai also turned its weakness - being seen as Thaksin's proxy party - into its strength, by campaigning that "Thaksin thinks and Pheu Thai will do it".

The party did not deny its connection with the ex-prime minister but instead used the link to its advantage, by promising voters a return of "the good old policies" when Thaksin was in power - such as the Village Fund and the universal healthcare programme.

One of the most exciting platforms of Pheu Thai's campaign was the issuing of credit cards to farmers so that they could buy items necessary for farming, such as fertiliser and pesticide, on credit. This policy appeared to please grass-roots people who want to become part of the middle class, and having a credit card could be a good beginning for them.

When it came to populist policies, Pheu Thai appeared to benefit from the success of Thai Rak Thai, which was the first to implement populist policies seriously, resulting in much popularity for the now-disbanded party.

Although the Democrat Party began formulating many populist policies while in power, its efforts appeared insufficient to win back much support from Thaksin's party.

Pheu Thai also successfully positioned Yingluck's positive image as a "working woman" who did not resort to mudslinging while focusing on policies and her success in business and work.

Moreover, Pheu Thai did not fall into the Democrats' traps - a repeated call for a public debate between Yingluck and Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, and the allegation that Pheu Thai intended to give amnesty to Thaksin and return the Bt46 billion seized by a court order.

The Democrats, in the later part of their campaign rally, tried to link Pheu Thai to people responsible for "burning of the city" during last year's unrest in Bangkok, but the effort appeared to have only limited impact on the election. It was a last-ditch tactical move but the party, throughout the campaign, did not have a clear winning political strategy.

Yingluck's success also was due to Pheu Thai's efficient teamwork in projecting her good image through marketing techniques, while the Democrats' teamwork was not as good.

The Democrats' weaknesses lay mostly in being the ruling party. Their government's slow response to national problems helped Pheu Thai criticise them for being "only good at talking".

Prime Minister Abhisit's nine-point code of conduct for his Cabinet members failed to live up to its promise, dampening goodwill it enjoyed with Democrat supporters. Also, it seemed to be often confused while handling bilateral relations with Cambodia over the Preah Vihear temple saga.

-- The Nation 2011-07-04

[REM]

They call the Shinawatra's a genius family, but there is nothing genius about what they did. They pandered to the poor population promising unrealistic populist policies, not talking about how they would finance these policies, and avoiding public debate knowing they would get torn apart.

There is nothing genius about that, it's simply called pandering. We'll see if everyone gets what they were promised, and when the problems arise again..........I don't see genius, I see getting rid of one tense situation, while creating an even more tense situation......

[whybother]

I'd hardly call PTP an underdog. They were already the largest party.

[hammered]

Well thought out policies presented in a very efficient marketing and PR campaign linked to a large base to start with proved more than enough for PTP. On the other side the Dems struggled to match policies and their PR stuff was an utter shambles reminiscent of Banyat's. They also failed to mobilise their base properly and lost seats they won last time around. Yet again the Dems find themselves in a position of needing to go back and start again.

[virtualtraveller]

You've got to hand one thing to Thaksin, he is a electioneering genius, for someone of such obvious character and integrity flaws to repeatedly win over the hearts and minds of the voter, is amazing. After everything we now know about him, the corruption that came out in the cases against him, his role in instigating a terrorist attempt to overthrow the govt from the streets, and so on, he managed to exceed expectations using a party that just two months ago was threatening to fall apart at the seems. Yingluck was a canny stroke of insight, but it goes far beyond that and he began campaigning for this two years ago with a relentless strategy to discredit the Dem govt, set them up to spill blood, expose the military as right wing, and convince all the grass roots people that the coup was all just a big conspiracy for the elite to steal something from the poor.

And 20 million dimwit voters fell for this cynical poison hook line and sinker. 'You can fool 55% of the people all the of the time...' and that's all that matters really. It doesn't solve anything, a victory based on such dodgy background and principle is bound to run into trouble sooner or later.

[jaltsc]

Bottom Line: "Our crook defeated their crook".

[Steely Dan]

Bottom Line: "Our crook defeated their crook".

Paternal despotism is not true democracy however nicely you wrap it. Democracy is essentially all the population agreeing to be bound to a democratic process where on some issues they will benefit and on others they will not, the payoff is that the absence of violence and anarchy means everyone benefits overall. Paternal despotism on the other hand means one faction clearly gains at the expense of another and the leader of said faction is given carte blanche to line their own pockets in return. There is no feeling of oneness or national belonging in such a system.

[wiscoman]

Bottom Line: "Our crook defeated their crook".

Paternal despotism is not true democracy however nicely you wrap it. Democracy is essentially all the population agreeing to be bound to a democratic process where on some issues they will benefit and on others they will not, the payoff is that the absence of violence and anarchy means everyone benefits overall. Paternal despotism on the other hand means one faction clearly gains at the expense of another and the leader of said faction is given carte blanche to line their own pockets in return. There is no feeling of oneness or national belonging in such a system.

"True Democracy" The world has never seen this. Half of ancient Athens population was slave. I doubt anybody after the 2000 election would say the U.S. is truly democratic. Whichever party by whatever margin is in the majority will line their own pockets and will appease the people that voted for it with a few bits of legislation it had campaigned on. You get compromise in a Parliamentary system or representative Democracy is when there is no clear majority in government. No one will ever feel oneness and complete national unity a democratic system. Unless you are in brainwashed North Korea people are not robots all working in the same direction.