The hopeful sentiment following the May 14 elections has gradually evaporated following fierce horse-trading between the two winning parties -- the Move Forward Party (MFP) and the Pheu Thai Party over which party will secure the House speaker's seat.
The antics have been perceived as a warning sign of possible political storms ahead. Both parties are reportedly now not on good terms, and it does not bode well for the future and health of Thai democracy or Thai voters.
For nine years, both parties represented the democratic movement and worked together to resist the junta government. Instead of enjoying victory together and cooperating, politicians from the MFP and Pheu Thai are now squabbling over power allocation.
Despite parliament convening this coming Monday with 500 MPs expected to vote to select the next House speaker the day after, nobody knows what the future of the next government will be.
The MFP has publicly appointed Phitsanulok MP Padipat Suntiphada as the candidate for the House speaker's job. Meanwhile, it's reported that veteran politician Suchart Tancharoen who was deputy House speaker will represent Pheu Thai Party for the House speaker candidacy.
Amidst it all, political games reared their ugly head when veteran politicians from Pheu Thai Party, such as Adisorn Piengkate and heavyweight Chalerm Ubumrung joined the fray to criticise the MFP over the House speaker role.
Negotiations between both parties have become terse, and since Wednesday, the MFP was reportedly postponing negotiations. Then rumours about a political falling out between both parties and "new formulae" of new coalition parties or new prime minister candidates with links to the junta government started to gain ground.
Is this the type of new politics that voters hoped to see?
For voters who only wish to see elected politicians working on bread-and-butter issues, seeing both parties turn into ruthless bargainers is dismaying. To get the positions they want, both parties have claimed that they received a "mandate from the voters". Theoretically, these parties are entitled to make such a claim, but does this justification promote real democratic progress in Thailand?
It needs to be pointed out that the MFP has been campaigning to improve Thai democracy, and one of the measures the party pledged to do is to promote the checks-and-balances system.
This system is based on the separation of power to avoid one entity or body wielding too much power. But the party's steadfast demand to get both prime minister and House speaker posts is not aligned with such an idea.
Understandably, with the prime minister and House speaker roles, the MFP could facilitate policy implementation and the amendment of laws.
But questions arise. How can the MFP be fully checked when it has too much power in both the government and legislative bodies? How can the MFP promote a checks and balance system when in practice, its aggressive pursuit of both the prime minister and House speaker roles just confirms the power consolidation?
In Thailand, democracy has been attacked since it was first introduced after the bloodless Siamese coup d'etat of 1932. The threat to Thai democracy is not only military intervention but also a weakness of checks and balances. Therefore, it's important to re-examine and re-establish a new form of power-sharing amongst the coalition. The House speaker role should not be perceived as an entitlement of the two big parties that must be fought over at any cost.
On the contrary, this coveted position should be a symbol of the separation of powers to ensure that the three branches of power, namely the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, can scrutinise each other and prevent any abuse of power.
The MFP has demonstrated the party is an agent for change and repeatedly pledged that Leuk Kao Klai Prathet Thai Mai Meun Derm, literally translated as "Vote for the MFP, Thailand will never be the same", in the recent election. So, what kind of differences or new politics will the party deliver to the citizens of Thailand? Voters, supporters or opponents, are now anxiously waiting to see.
In Thailand, ministerial positions are typically allocated on a quota basis, meaning influential MPs or coalition parties can normally reap the benefit of the system to make a return from their political investment or at least create development projects to win their voters' hearts.
The MFP has acknowledged this problem and is determined to eradicate such a system. Ironically, the party and its supporting mechanism, the Progressive Movement -- a group of former MPs and members of the party's predecessor party, the Future Forward Party -- has been forcefully arguing for the necessity of the MFP to escalate its control in the House of Representatives. So, is this the form of the new political culture the MFP pledged to establish?
Of course, one cannot be naïve in politics. Labelled as one of the most progressive parties in Thailand, the MFP must take this opportunity to show it is different from other political parties by advocating checks and balances in sharing power among parties in the coalition.
Although power cannot be equally distributed to all MFP-led eight-coalition parties, power and ministry portfolios and seats should not be seen as the issue of only two parties while the other six are left on the side. That said, neither the MFP nor Pheu Thai should claim ownership of the Speaker of the House position if Thai democratic progress is significant as they have claimed it was during the general election.
In a democracy, sacrifices have to be made, starting with creating a more democratic coalition government from within. The question remains whether MFP and Pheu Thai can prioritise the democratic process and the people's interests when the House of Representatives convenes next week. If so, Thai democracy could flourish in a much anticipated Thai Spring.
Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University, Thailand.
