Major parties have been rocked by conflict from within in the lead-up to the next poll and the problem could have a direct bearing on how they fare when the big day comes.
The Pheu Thai, the Palang Pracharath and the Move Forward parties have suffered more from blood-letting inside the party than blows inflicted by opponents of late.
Although a decree setting the election date has yet to be issued, parties have been quick off the mark to unveil their flagship policies. Some have been going through a rough patch trying to sort out their own differences, not to mention problems with their supposed political allies, largely with disappointing results.
While experts say internal conflicts and rows involving their political bedfellows are a part and parcel of elections, there could be ramifications for the way these parties fare at the election.
Pheu Thai vs red shirts
The main opposition Pheu Thai has consistently counted on the red shirts -- members of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) -- as its mainstay backers in elections. It is they who mainly contributed to the Pheu Thai's electoral victory in the past.
The UDD network used to be extensive with large concentrations of followers based in the Northeast and the North regions. These are the powerhouse regions where most seats are on offer.
Political analysts believe when the Pheu Thai's landslide strategy was in its conceptual stage, the red shirts were seen as a vehicle for scoring an election landslide.
But that was before UDD chairman, Jatuporn Prompan, once zealously loyal to the Pheu Thai Party and former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, seen as the party's main string-puller, stepped forward.
Thaksin founded the now-disbanded Thai Rak Thai Party, predecessor of the People's Power Party whose dissolution over electoral fraud gave birth to Pheu Thai, and still regularly counsels Pheu Thai MPs.
Words of betrayal?
Mr Jatuporn gave a series of explosive, tell-all interviews on a political talk show hosted by the co-leader of Kana Lomruam Prachachon (Melting Pot Group) in which he laid bare his bitter feelings towards Thaksin.
As a UDD boss who fought in the Pheu Thai-allied street protests alongside the red shirts, he said he'd been witness to betrayals committed by a former premier living in self-imposed exile, who he alleged was the puppet master behind the red-shirt rallies.
Mr Jatuporn said he felt double-crossed but had to soldier on as UDD leader out of a sense of personal gratitude towards the former premier.
In one interview, Mr Jatuporn said the most bitter taste of betrayal came when Pheu Thai pushed through a wholesale amnesty law in parliament during the Yingluck Shinawatra administration.
In the beginning, Mr Jatuporn said he endorsed the bill since it was written originally to absolve protesters of all stripes charged with politics-related offences. The initial version excluded the protest leaders and politicians from its coverage.
However, the bill that passed the parliament during the wee hours of the morning was rewritten to offer a blanket amnesty whose beneficiaries included Thaksin.
Thaksin escaped the country before his conviction by the Supreme Court on a charge for abusing his power as prime minister by helping his then wife, Khunying Potjaman Na Pombejra, buy prime land in Bangkok at a discount.
The proposed amnesty ignited the mass demonstrations by the People's Democratic Reform Committee which blasted the legislation as a legal whitewash for Thaksin.
According to Mr Jatuporn, the bill was also a disservice to the red shirts. By widening its coverage to include Thaksin and not being limited to political protesters, the bill went against the grain of public sentiment.
It was designed to serve vested interests and as a result never saw the light of day. The door was meanwhile shut on ordinary participants in the red-shirt protests, who might otherwise have been granted an amnesty.
Mr Jatuporn said the politicisation of the bill marked a watershed where he began drifting apart from the former premier and Pheu Thai.
Since the 2014 coup that ousted the Pheu Thai-led government, he kept a low profile until he decided to co-found the Kana Lomruam movement which campaigns against the "Three Por" generals -- Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, Deputy Prime Minister and ruling Palang Pracharath Party leader Prawit Wongsuwon, and Interior Minister Anupong Paojinda -- clinging on to power.
Mr Jatuporn said the last straw for him was when Thaksin met Thai politicians in Hong Kong recently and bad-mouthed him.
Mr Jatuporn said the conversation in Hong Kong dwelled on allegations that he had been bankrolled to assist a candidate who was competing against Pheu Thai in a provincial administrative organisation election last year.
"That was the straw that broke the donkey's back," Mr Jatuporn said. He had kept his frustrations and disappointments that he experienced as UDD leader bottled up for years.
He had intended to take those frustrations, many of which were the result of being blindly loyal to Thaksin, to the grave. But the bankroll allegation compelled him to step forward to expose the "untold" stories of what went on behind the scenes in the UDD protests and Thaksin's role in the movement.
Parting company
After the several days of non-stop exposes, some UDD factions in the provinces declared they were parting company with Pheu Thai although the reasons for their breaking away were more political than ideological.
The factions were angry that their representatives, also registered as Pheu Thai members, were cast aside as potential candidates by the main opposition party at the next poll.
Some have quit Pheu Thai and joined Bhumjaithai, Pheu Thai's arch rival in the constituency MP contest.
The Pheu Thai's crumbling red-shirt strongholds may have justified a poll strategy rethink on the party's part to maintain its leverage as it aims for a landslide win.
It hopes the addition of high profile politicians from elsewhere will help make up the difference.
The party recently accepted as members a group of 12 politicians led by Chon Buri's veteran MP and former Pattaya mayor Sonthaya Kunplome who will contest the election under Pheu Thai's banner. The group defected from the ruling Palang Pracharath Party.
Their candidacy was confirmed by Pheu Thai leader Dr Cholnan Srikaew, who said the group would run in the constituency and party-list systems.
Palang Pracharath Party
The ruling party is predicted to shrink in size, from 116 MP seats it captured in the 2019 election, after Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha's split from the party and subsequent move to the United Thai Nation (UTN) Party.
Gen Prayut's relationship with the PPRP has not always been rosy. Although he was never a member of the party, it nominated him to be its sole prime ministerial candidate in the previous poll and Gen Prayut was eventually elected as premier.
Throughout his time with the PPRP, Gen Prayut was often chided by party insiders for keeping his distance from the party.
According to observers, the PPRP was the wrong fit for Gen Prayut. He apparently did not feel comfortable being surrounded by many "old-school", wheeler-dealer politicians with a history of party-hopping.
The highly factional nature of the PPRP also kept Gen Prayut from reining in some party stalwarts, who also served in cabinet posts under the wing of PPRP leader Gen Prawit Wongsuwon.
It was clear that Gen Prayut did not feel comfortable in an environment where he was supposed to lead a government with certain members who not only refused to toe the line but also tried to put him down.
One case in point was the attempt by former PPRP secretary-general Capt Thamanat Prompow to stage a mutiny by mustering ruling party MPs and some from micro-parties to cast no-confidence vote against Gen Prayut in a censure debate in 2021.
Gen Prayut learned of the plot, foiled it, and sacked Capt Thamanat as deputy agriculture minister. Narumon Pinyosinwat, another PPRP executive, was also fired as deputy labour minister allegedly for colluding against the premier.
Capt Thamanat managed to cling on as PPRP secretary-general for many months before he finally left the party to establish the Ruam Phaen Din Party. Prior to his PPRP exit, he remained Gen Prawit's right-hand man, much to Gen Prayut's chagrin.
The observers said that despite Capt Thamanat being shown the door, PPRP's displeasure with Gen Prayut did not dissipate. The prime minister, although not a member of the PPRP, was expected by some to cosy up to them more, or at least be less aloof.
The drum roll for the next poll started when amendments to two organic laws on the election of MPs and parties -- integral for holding a general election -- being published in the Royal Gazette late last month.
As a result, Gen Prayut had arrived at a point where he had to make a critical decision in his political career.
After declaring his intention to seek another term as prime minister, his choice boiled down to sticking with the PPRP or looking for a new political venture.
Gen Prayut opted for the latter and headed to the UTN which is believed to be fast gaining ground even on the PPRP in some constituencies.
But the void left by Gen Prayut has also freed up space for Gen Prawit to be nominated by the PPRP as its sole prime ministerial candidate.
Gen Prawit and Gen Prayut belong to the "Three Por" generals clique which also includes Interior Minister Gen Anupong Paojinda.
Some political experts reckoned the supposed rift between Gen Prayut and Prawit may be a two-pronged strategy where the PPRP will focus on collecting constituency seats while UTN capitalises on Gen Prayut's relatively unblemished image to win list MPs before the two parties reunite to form a coalition government together after the poll.
Move Forward Party
The Move Forward Party (MFP) also had its fair share of internal conflict played out in public last week.
MFP leader Pita Limjaroenrat and Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, secretary-general of the Progressive Movement (PM), traded jibes on social media, sparking concern among MFP supporters that the rift might undermine the party's performance at the May 7 election.
Mr Piyabutr, a law academic, co-founded the Future Forward Party (FFP), which was dissolved over an illegal loan in a court decision which subsequently gave rise to the MFP.
In his Facebook post, Mr Piyabutr fired the first salvo, criticising how the MFP was being run. Citing a Nida Poll, he said MFP was like a glass full of water with a support base that neither shrinks nor expands.
The MFP survives on the votes of its firm supporters. But if it wants to grow in the next poll, it must tap into the pool of undecided voters and convince them to cast their ballots for the MFP, he said.
The party must tackle the Pheu Thai Party, he said. Left unaddressed PTT would eat into the MFP's support base.
He said a vast number of Pheu Thai supporters also agree with many of the policies which the MFP advocates.
However, they want to vote for Pheu Thai because they feel the MFP stands little chance of winning decisively and forming a government on its own or leading a coalition government.
But if the MFP wishes to expand, the party must show voters it has what it takes to compete with Pheu Thai and emerge from the next poll as the biggest party, Mr Piyabutr said.
Mr Piyabutr suggested the MFP rethink its campaign narrative and shift away from the so-called "pro-democracy camp against dictators' idea".
He favoured an approach where "old powers" were being pitted against "new powers" represented by the MFP. In the process, Mr Piyabutr questioned Mr Pita's leadership and the direction in which he was taking the party.
In comments marking the third anniversary of the FFP's dissolution on Wednesday, Mr Pita said he wanted Mr Piyabutr to stop "not only being unhelpful but also obstructing the party's work".
Mr Pita also called Mr Piyabutr unprofessional. He should help the party with its election goal of removing the three "Por" generals.
Mr Piyabutr responded on Facebook, accusing Mr Pita of "smearing me while praising himself". He said he had been straightforward in his criticism, and tried to avoid singling out any individuals.
He also claimed to have turned down media invitations to talk about the MFP. He also issued a threat to open up to the media and "expose" Mr Pita.
Kiss and made up
However, just as the exchange of barbs was reaching its climax, the two men announced a truce. The MFP on Wednesday insisted the war of words between Mr Pita and Mr Piyabutr was over.
The pair were shown in a video clip singing together at a party and apologising to members for the distress they had caused. They said the rift between them had stemmed from a misunderstanding. The made up following an intervention by PM chairman Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit. Critics said their "conflict" was staged for publicity purposes, something the MFP denied.
Political sources said that despite the public show of reconciling their differences, the two were clearly not on the same page over the policies and strategies which the MFP should adopt going into the election. A political commentator described the reconciliation as "old wine in a cracked bottle."
Strategy gone astray
What happened in the MFP speaks of deep-seated concern about the party's election strategy which degenerated into fallout between a co-founder of the FFP and the MFP leader, said Wanwichit Boonprong, a political scientist at Rangsit University.
There might be more to what caused the conflict than meets the eye, he said.
It was possible that someone close to the party who wields influence over its affairs may have tried to nominate their own people to be candidates on the party's list.
The conflict may have set the stage for ramping up negotiating power over who should make the list-candidacy cut.
He warned that an outsider being allowed to exert influence over a party would amount to an offence against the party.
Conflicts normal
Yutthaporn Isarachai, a political science professor from Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, said diverse and often contrasting standpoints were a norm particularly among liberal-minded political parties.
Unlike the older parties where MPs must toe the party line, those with a more liberal ideology tend to designate a platform for internal debates.
But when a spat, which sometimes involves someone close to the party, plays out in the open, as was the case with MFP, supporters are naturally anxious to know how the rift would end or what impact it would have on the party.
Others wondered if the conflict was just political theatre. "In politics, there can be many different factions in a party under the same roof," he said.
Conflicts are nothing out the ordinary.
If members hit a dead-end trying to settle a dispute, they leave and set up a new party, Mr Yutthaporn said.
He said disagreements over the selection of MP candidates had been a source of rifts.
"But it also shows how backward our system has been for not mandating each party to have a policy council," he said.
Through the council, party members participate in policy formulation and key decisions. The existing system hands over such powers to party financiers.
Mr Yutthaporn said the primary vote stipulated by the constitution, where parties are required to organise forums for members to elect prospective candidates, has been reduced to a ceremonial function. In fact, party executives have the final say on who will stand.
Olarn Tinbangtiew, a lecturer at the faculty of political science and law, Burapha University, said conflicts are unavoidable in a democracy. However, problems can develop when a conflict goes unexplained.
He cited an instance where Pheu Thai had kept mum after it decided to send two members to contest the poll under the same constituency.
