Between Renewal and Retreat: Thailand’s Fractured Coalition and the Struggle for Political Survival

The Bhumjaithai Party's recent departure from the ruling coalition has starkly revealed the government's precarious grip on power and the inherent contradictions within the Pheu Thai-led alliance. While their exit was publicly attributed to concerns over national sovereignty following a leaked phone call, it was fundamentally driven by deeper political calculations, notably the escalating tension surrounding control of the influential Interior Ministry. Bhumjaithai's leadership, particularly Anutin Charnvirakul and key strategist Newin Chidchob, presented a cohesive front within the party, highlighting their resolve.

What began in 2023 as an uneasy alliance between ideological rivals now shows signs of unravelling under the weight of internal tensions, unfulfilled reform promises, and growing public disillusionment. The shifting coalition landscape is not only a symptom of Thailand’s unstable democratic institutions but also a signal of what may come in the next general election: more fragmentation, more pragmatism, and possibly, less reform.

When Pheu Thai—long associated with populist economic policies and the Shinawatra political family—returned to power, it did so not through a progressive front but through an unexpected partnership with conservative and pro-junta parties, which included Palang Pracharath, the United Thai Nation Party, and Bhumjaithai, which it had once opposed.  Facing institutional constraints, Pheu Thai secured the premiership by adopting a strategy of compromise—an approach that undermined its credibility, especially among voters seeking reform who had hoped for a shift away from conservative politics. Furthermore, the Bhumjaithai Party is gaining popularity by upholding its conservative stance. According to the NIDA Poll, it is drawing in former red-shirt supporters who have become disillusioned with Pheu Thai.

The coalition is approaching its midterm. Bhumjaithai’s exit narrows the government’s options, forcing Pheu Thai into risky choices that could further alienate voters and erode the party's fragile legitimacy. Although party leaders characterise it as a strategic change, many perceive Bhumjaithai's departure as a reaction to its diminishing influence within the coalition, ongoing policy disagreements—especially regarding cannabis laws—and accusations of political betrayal linked to the Senator collusion case, which is approaching a crucial juncture. There is also a belief that Bhumjaithai anticipates better prospects in the forthcoming elections. This move illustrates Pheu Thai's tendency to prioritise power-sharing over a cohesive political vision.

The government’s biggest challenge is balancing talk of reform with the reality of power-sharing—and that balance is often complicated by the ongoing influence of Thaksin Shinawatra. Campaigning on ambitious promises, Pheu Thai pledged to revive the economy through digital cash handouts, and advance social welfare. However, a significant portion of this agenda has stagnated. The much-touted Entertainment Complex Bill, for instance, faced significant watering down and internal resistance.

Beyond this, the fragile coalition quickly abandoned key proposals, such as ambitious plans to reduce military influence and deeper military reforms. While bureaucracy stifles some policies, coalition partners have either watered them down or blocked others. Constitutional amendments were quietly sidelined, while more controversial reforms—such as passing amnesty bills or addressing military power—had their public discourse silenced altogether. This silence underscores Thaksin’s paradox: while it energises rural populists, it repels reformists, as seen in the People’s Party’s refusal to join the coalition and younger voters’ growing disillusionment. Such tensions reflect the elite balancing act forged to facilitate his return—one that prioritises survival over transformation.

Adding to these challenges, Bhumjaithai's exit further constricts the government's manoeuvrability, intensifying the difficult choices that Pheu Thai already encounters. This added pressure means that any strategic choice—like trying to find new allies in parliament or just focusing on staying in power—now has a higher chance of upsetting voters and hurting the party’s already weak credibility. The former, for instance, could lead to fresh political conflicts. The latter, which involves retreating into a holding pattern, may exacerbate voter alienation, particularly among younger and more politically engaged citizens who are becoming increasingly disillusioned with Thailand’s perpetual cycles of compromise and stagnation.

This political crisis unfolds at a time when Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra is grappling with significant legal uncertainty, intricately linked to her father's political legacy and perceived interventions. The incident casts a considerable shadow over her premiership, contributing to the perception of a government in limbo, weighed down by Thaksin's ongoing legal battles, including lèse majesté charges and relentless scrutiny of his political manoeuvres. While the outcome remains unclear, the situation highlights how institutional constraints and judicial mechanisms continue to influence the balance of power in post-coup Thailand, often functioning as instruments in the broader power struggle between the Shinawatra family and the establishment.

Beyond the palace and parliament walls of Bangkok, these dynamics are playing out in complex ways across the provinces. The 2025 Provincial Administrative Organisation (PAO) elections revealed increasing diversification in local political landscapes. Voters are experimenting with non-partisan candidates, but those rooted in provincial families are gaining ground, and national parties no longer command the same loyalty they expected. Bhumjaithai's move could indicate that traditional parties are adapting to a more competitive and fragmented future, where localism, digital campaigning, and issue-based mobilisation will be crucial. Bhumjaithai effectively demonstrated this strategy in the recent PAO elections, leveraging its deep local networks, which underscores the importance they place on such control.

So where does Pheu Thai go from here? The party still commands significant resources and has a strong institutional presence, but it now faces a critical choice: to reconnect with its grassroots support or to continue forging alliances with powerful political insiders—a path increasingly influenced by Thaksin Shinawatra’s return. If it fails to address grassroots expectations, particularly in rural constituencies that have begun to show signs of shifting loyalties due to disillusionment with the compromises surrounding the Shinawatra family's political manoeuvres, Pheu Thai risks losing not only votes but also its very identity. If the party cannot reconcile its populist roots with its current elite alliances, it jeopardises not just its electoral support but also its political essence.

Thailand’s coalition politics reveal something deeper than just vote counts—they point to growing problems with the country’s democracy. The 2017 Constitution, designed to prevent strong single-party governments, has succeeded in producing weak and divided ones. Real political reform—whether in the form of constitutional changes or increased accountability—requires more than just electoral victories. It requires political will, popular legitimacy, and a break from the entrenched culture of deal-making that has long defined Thai governance.

The departure of Bhumjaithai underscores Thailand's democratic malaise, characterised by a tendency for short-term survival to consistently override meaningful transformation. As the Pheu Thai government faces a looming no-confidence vote, engages in upcoming debates regarding the 2026 Budget Bill, and tackles the legal hurdles confronting its leaders, an important question emerges: Can any government achieve substantial change while the same powerful institutions remain in place, or will compromise and behind-the-scenes negotiations continue to dominate?

-Asia Media Centre