Srettha Thavisin’s appointment as Thailand’s prime minister in August, after a three-month post-election deadlock, brought forth a wave of controversy and intrigue. A former real estate developer with limited political experience, his rise was marked by an unusual alliance between his Pheu Thai Party and the country’s military-backed and monarchy-supporting political establishment. This partnership effectively thwarted the more popular and progressive Move Forward Party (MFP) from taking power. To add to the complexity of the situation, his first month in office was marred by a tragic incident, as a 14-year-old shooter unleashed violence at the popular Siam Paragon Mall in Bangkok, resulting in two fatalities and six injuries.
However, Srettha Thavisin’s initial approach to governance has been centered around the concept of economic populism, reminiscent of the style associated with former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, with whom Pheu Thai is closely associated. Srettha has framed Thailand’s struggling economy, which has been battered by the COVID-19 pandemic and a decline in investor confidence, as a “sick person” in need of healing. However, as we delve into the details of his policies and pronouncements, questions emerge about whether this old-fashioned populism is sustainable in the long term.
Srettha’s alliance with the military-backed and monarchy-supporting establishment raised eyebrows among many political observers. Pheu Thai, historically associated with the Shinawatra clan, had long positioned itself as a counterbalance to the establishment. The party’s alignment with the very forces that the party had opposed for years appeared to be a strategic move to seize power, after conservatives refused to support a government led by the MFP, but it also risked alienating his party’s base and supporters who expected a different approach.
Moreover, the alliance’s impact on the MFP cannot be overlooked. By joining hands with the establishment, Srettha effectively blocked a party that had gained substantial popularity, especially among younger voters, and managed to win the most seats in parliament at the May 14 general election. This move raised questions about his commitment to democratic principles and his willingness to embrace diverse voices within Thailand’s political landscape.
Srettha’s emphasis on populism as a means to address Thailand’s economic challenges has been a recurring theme since his appointment as prime minister, but questions linger about the substance of his economic policies.
Economic populism, as practiced by Thaksin Shinawatra during his tenure as prime minister (2001-2006), involved policies that directly benefit the masses, such as subsidies, welfare programs, and other pro-poor initiatives. Thaksin’s approach was successful in garnering support from rural and working-class voters, and helped him build a strong political base, especially in the country’s north and northeast. However, it also raised concerns about fiscal sustainability and the potential for corruption and misuse of public funds.
Srettha’s approach to economic populism appears to be following a similar path. He has made promises to revive the economy by stimulating domestic consumption, boosting small and medium-sized enterprises, and addressing income inequality. While these policies may resonate with a significant portion of the Thai population, the sustainability of such measures in the long run is unclear.
One issue is the fiscal impact of these populist policies. Thailand’s economy has been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a significant budget deficit. Implementing expansive populist measures without a clear plan for revenue generation could exacerbate the country’s fiscal challenges over the longer term. Moreover, there is a risk of overreliance on government intervention in the economy, which can hinder private sector growth and innovation.
Additionally, Srettha’s economic populism may face challenges in addressing the root causes of Thailand’s economic woes. Falling investor confidence, for example, is influenced by broader factors such as political stability, the rule of law, and transparency. To truly revive the economy, a comprehensive approach that tackles these broader issues is necessary. Another aspect to consider is the potential for short-term gains at the expense of long-term economic sustainability. Populist policies often prioritize immediate benefits to secure popular support, but they may not always address the underlying structural issues that hinder sustained economic growth. For Thailand to thrive in the post-pandemic era, it will need reforms that go beyond populism and address challenges in areas like education, innovation, and governance.
This month’s tragic shooting incident at Siam Paragon, although not directly related to economic policies, carries implications for Srettha’s leadership and his ability to address pressing issues in Thai society. The incident highlighted the need for effective security measures to control the spread of deadly weapons, and social policies that address the root causes of such acts of violence.
Srettha’s response to the shooting will be closely watched by the Thai public. His ability to provide reassurance, ensure justice, and address the broader concerns about safety and security will shape perceptions of his leadership. It is a reminder that governance involves more than just economic policies; it encompasses the overall well-being and security of the population.
As Thailand moves forward, the path chosen by Srettha Thavisin will significantly influence the country’s trajectory, and it remains uncertain whether his brand of old-fashioned populism can provide long-term solutions to Thailand’s complex issues. Indeed, the deeper challenges facing Thailand require a comprehensive and forward-looking approach that goes beyond populism, however popular the latter might be in the short term.
