«Time and demographics are on our side»

Lesen Sie die Deutsch Version hier.

What brings you to Switzerland this time around?

I came to give a keynote on the state of Asia. It is a monumental time to be talking about the relationship between Europe and Asia in what I call the post-hegemonic world. I spoke in the same room where Winston Churchill spoke in 1946, asking for nothing less than building the United States of Europe. We are at a similar interregnum today, where something has ended, and a new chapter is about to begin.

What makes you think we’re in a similar transition period?

I was putting forward the view that the post-Cold War era based on American primacy, globalization and liberal democracy is fraying before our eyes, and we don’t know what will come next.

What might this mean for Asia in practical terms?

Asia’s next chapter on power after the interregnum should be «connection over confrontation». In Asia back in the 1950s, power came from the Non-Aligned Movement (no formal alignment with any major power bloc) where neutrality was power. Going forward, neutrality is not going to fly anymore in my view, but a small, flexible network of coalitions will – think of Singapore, Indonesia, or Malaysia, all of which choose principles over sides. Also, Asia will evolve from the world’s factory to the world’s laboratory. And Asia’s next chapter will hopefully include designing peace rather than just hoping for it.

How did your political journey begin?

I started off my career in the private sector, at the Boston Consulting Group in 2000. After the 2004 tsunami devastated parts of Thailand and Indonesia, I helped to design Thailand’s tourism recovery strategy on behalf of the government. That experience made me realize how much more complex public policy is compared to private sector work. So, I joined the government under Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from 2002 to 2006.

In 2023, you almost became Thailand’s new Prime Minister. Why didn’t it work out?

In a nutshell, it was politics of elected versus appointed. I was the people’s choice, but what followed was parliamentary chaos. My party «Move Forward» came out on top with 40 percent of voters backing me personally. The voter turnout was the highest in Thai history. Yet, an unelected Senate, appointed by the military, blocked my nomination. We had built a broad and very comfortable coalition of 312 out of 500 seats, but the appointed chamber overturned the result.

Why did your opponents block you?

To cling on to power. The military junta had ruled for nearly a decade, and when real elections returned, we won by a landslide. They wanted to make sure the election results would not translate into governance. It was not about me, but about a system defending itself. Power rarely disappears, but mutates into new forms of control. It’s a very common pattern of competitive autocracies around the world. Autocrats allow elections, but manipulate the outcome as needed.

After the elections came the court orders.

Correct, two of them. Both orders are examples of judicial overreach. The first one was an undue suspension. I was accused of holding shares in a defunct media company that belonged to my father and was closed down 18 years ago. There’s a law prohibiting politicians from holding shares in media companies, and rightly so. But they used it tactically to suspend me for six months from being a member of parliament, hence I was not eligible to become Prime Minister. I was later cleared of the allegations, once a new prime minister was installed. Second, an attempted amendment of the criminal code – specifically, the lèse-majesté law, which protects the monarchy from defamation – led to the dissolution of my party and a ten-year political ban for me.

Why didn’t somebody else in your party step up to the top job?

Because under Thai law, you must pre-submit prime ministerial candidates before the election. Our party had only one candidate. No later swapping allowed. When my undue suspension came, our coalition partners turned against us and formed their own government. So becoming a coalition partner under a different prime minister wasn’t an option either.

Essentially, the courts decide who governs Thailand.

Exactly. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra (the predecessor of the incumbent Anutin Charnvirakul) has been ousted yet again by a constitutional order. This is the third judicial coup in two years. This time, because of alleged «unethical behavior» in a leaked informal call with the former leader of Cambodia. The mechanism is always the same. This is how the elites keep their power. The current leader only represents 2,5 percent of the popular vote.

A main reason why your political ban was issued was because you wanted to reform the monarchy…

We didn’t want to reform the monarchy. We support the constitutional monarchy. But we sought to amend the lèse-majesté law. Our aim was to achieve proportionality and protect both freedom of speech and the head of state. Thailand has one of the strictest penalties in the world for criticizing the monarchy, with jail sentences of up to 15 years. This compared to a few months in some European monarchies. Over-penalizing doesn’t increase reverence. On top of that, by simply labelling any project «royal» you can make sure you won’t ever be scrutinized for corruption. And that’s not good for the King either.

Should another opportunity arise, would you still make this a priority of yours?

The ruling of the Thai constitutional court means that space for reform is unfortunately shrinking, but it is not zero. We shall continue to work within that narrow space, carefully and lawfully, trying to Europeanize the Thai monarchy as best we can.

You call yourself a progressive. What does this entail?

Our platform resembles social democratic parties in Germany or Denmark – with a focus on labor rights, human rights and inclusive growth. We also advocate same-sex marriage, indigenous rights, and anti-torture laws. What may be center or center-left by European standards, is progressive and radical enough for a conservative Buddhist country like Thailand.

What did you learn from your failed attempt to power?

That elites don’t give up easily. Thailand first became democratic in 1932. During the first 80 years, 13 military coups have happened. The European Union stopped negotiating a trade agreement over a classical military power grab. Nowadays, military coups have been replaced by judicial coups and appointed politics, which is a much more discrete and elegant way. In the past two decades alone, courts have dissolved 35 parties and banned hundreds of politicians. Lawfare has replaced warfare. If the generals can appoint judges, who can dissolve parties, you don’t need tanks on the streets anymore.

Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, the co-founder of Move Forward, was also banned. Do you think he is aiming for a political comeback? 

Yes, absolutely. His ban will expire in five years. He will be a boon to Thailand. We agree that it will take four election cycles to change a country like Thailand. Our party was thinking long term from the start. Today, we do a lot of talent development and succession planning, in case something happens to Thanathorn or others.

You mentioned the elites clinging on to power. You are a successful businessman. Don’t you consider yourself part of the elite?

Not at all. I’m middle class – my father worked in a pulp and paper company, my mother in a bank. Yes, I studied abroad, but we were never part of the top one percent.

«If the generals can appoint judges, who can dissolve parties, you don’t need tanks on the streets anymore.»

Who are these infamous elites, then?

The one percent. According to Oxfam, they control nearly eighty percent of Thailand’s wealth. I know them, went to college with them, but I don’t share their power.

Who is governing Thailand today?

The three M’s: the monopolies, military and media. It is a system of top-down crony and khaki (military) capitalism. A lot of the public feels exhausted and wants to fight, but still believes in gradual change through ballots rather than bullets.

Are you optimistic about the future of Thai democracy?

Quantifiably optimistic. Every year, demographics is coming up with 800,000 new potential first-time voters. By the time my ban will be over, my daughter will be 18, along with about 7 million other young voters representing 10 percent of the Thai population. They have grown up online, many are progressive and will shape the future of Thailand. But this is not a given. We need to stay connected to the younger generation. Time and demographics are on our side. This gives me hope.

What’s your take on the economy?

I stand for inclusive growth by the removal of market entry barriers. Monopolies dominate because they write the laws. For example, in Thailand, only two beer brands exist because small producers are blocked by regulation such as capital requirement. We want to open markets, de-commoditize agriculture, and support SMEs.

«A lot of the public feels exhausted and wants to fight, but still believes in gradual change through ballots rather than bullets.»

How is Thailand doing economically?

We grow at about 2 percent – we are the second largest and the second slowest growing economy in Asia, only ahead of Myanmar.

What are the reasons?

A lot of economic power is concentrated in about ten families. They might be growing, but the remaining parts of the country are not.

How are relations with Switzerland?

A long negotiated free trade agreement between ASEAN and EFTA has finally entered into force. Switzerland’s precision and neutrality are qualities Asia could learn from.

Are there any Asian democracies that you look up to?

South Korea and Indonesia. Korea transitioned after four dictators to become a high-tech and high-touch democracy. A year ago, the elected leader issued martial law but the people defended parliamentary democracy against this self-coup, showing remarkable resilience. Indonesia reformed its system in 1997 forcing the military to exit politics and business at last.

How would you manage relations with China?

China can’t be avoided. The key is to form a partnership without becoming overly dependent. We must diversify trade and investment among the United States, Europe, Australia, and Latin America. Then, China can be your friend rather than enemy. In my view, diversifying alliances and avoiding binary choices is also the way forward for Europe.

Instead of going against the ruling elite, was some sort of appeasement ever an option for you?

Negotiations are always possible, but from a position of strength, not weakness. I’ll trade ministerial seats to form a coalition, but not principles. We can also cooperate with soldiers as professionals, but not as rulers. I want democratic soldiers, not political ones.

You have another nine years to go on your ban from politics. What are your plans?

8.5 years, to be precise. I am counting the days, as you can see (laughing). I want to share and to learn. I am trying to learn and catch up with AI safety, AI in medicine, or carbon accounting. My essential project is to groom next-generation leaders. I may be benched, but I can still coach. I am waiting for my time.

Are you working on a political comeback?

Not yet. I’m accumulating small victories, knowledge, and people. Last time, we were a small team focusing on what to do and why. This time, a full cabinet will stand ready to govern. Thailand’s story is not finished yet.

The interview was conducted at the State of Asia conference in Rüschlikon, organized by the Asia Society Switzerland, where Pita Limjaroenrat appeared as a speaker.