Anutin's Rise Shows Power Of Pragmatism In Thailand

Latest stories

Peter Thiel's gospel of fear is control sold as salvation

Parades and charades at Tiananmen

Philippines eyes Ukraine drone boats to check China at sea

Constitutional Court judges moved swiftly, suspending and then dismissing her for ethical breaches. The coalition fractured. Anutin withdrew his party, resigned from the cabinet, and positioned himself as the only leader acceptable to rival factions. It was textbook Thai politics: no ideology, no new mandate, just a rearrangement of power among familiar players.

To understand what this means for Thailand's future, it helps to recall the country's persistent imbalance between civilian governance and military power. The armed forces have long claimed a guardianship role - sometimes openly, through coups, and at other times quietly, through institutional leverage.

The 2025 border conflict with Cambodia only strengthened that hand. During the crisis, the military acted with autonomy in key decisions, often bypassing civilian oversight. Public opinion surveys show the military remains the most trusted institution in matters of security, a reflection not only of its capabilities but also of civilian governments' chronic fragility.

Anutin is unlikely to challenge that arrangement. His own party is conservative, pro-monarchy and deeply intertwined with regional patronage networks that rely on military goodwill. The current constitutional order (itself the product of post-coup engineering) structurally favors conservative and military-aligned elites.

Civilian supremacy is, for now, aspirational rather than real. Under Anutin, civil-military relations will likely continue as they have: the generals shaping national security and foreign policy from behind the curtain while civilians administer day-to-day governance with limited authority.

The economic picture is no less complicated. The political crisis has rattled investor confidence , delayed the 2026 budget, and cast doubt on Thailand's ability to pursue major trade negotiations, particularly with the United States .

Analysts warn of slowed GDP growth, hesitant foreign investment, and policy paralysis as coalitions are patched together with more concern for survival than for reform. In this respect, Thailand risks joining a broader pattern visible in parts of Southeast Asia and beyond: governments consumed by tactical coalition-keeping rather than strategic nation-building.

Nor can one ignore the social consequences. The fall of Paetongtarn - daughter of Thaksin and once seen as the dynasty's next standard-bearer - signals a possible ebb in the Shinawatra family's long dominance.

Yet it does not resolve the deeper cleavage between rural populism and urban conservatism, between demands for reform and the guardianship instincts of the old elite. If anything, it may sharpen them. The political center has not held in Thailand; it has merely shifted temporarily toward a man skilled at navigating its fault lines.

Mass protests remain the wildcard. Thai history teaches that popular mobilization can upend political calculations, but only if it divides or neutralizes the military. Research on civil resistance movements worldwide shows that broad, nonviolent, cross-class coalitions are more likely to succeed in forcing reform or transition.

Fragmented, violent, or narrowly partisan protests, by contrast, tend to invite repression and entrench authoritarian reflexes. In Thailand, the military's institutional interests favor stability over democratic experiments. Unless protests threaten cohesion within the armed forces or raise the cost of repression beyond tolerable limits, the status quo is likely to endure.

Anutin's own record offers few clues that he intends to be a transformational leader. His signature policy achievement (the 2022 decriminalization of cannabis ) was bold but poorly regulated, leaving the country scrambling to impose safeguards.

His handling of Covid-19 was competent in some respects, lackluster in others, marred by sluggish vaccine procurement and defensive public remarks. Allegations of electoral manipulation and land-use improprieties around his party circle him like low clouds: not yet storms, but persistent signs of the murky political environment he inhabits comfortably.

Thailand, then, faces a paradox. It has a new prime minister who is arguably the most skilled dealmaker of his generation, yet whose skill lies in preserving a system rather than reforming it.

The country remains caught between an electorate that desires both stability and change, a military that brooks no challenge to its prerogatives, and a monarchy that exerts gravitational pull over political imagination even when silent. In this environment, survival often masquerades as progress.