Thailand’s Blue Regime: Giving No Quarter?

Does Thailand now have a ‘blue’ political regime? On 25 May, around 60 alleged members of this blue regime held a press conference at the Senate to deny that such a regime existed. If observers of volatile Thai politics are confused, this would not be surprising.

For the past 20 years, Thai politics has been colour-coded: conservative yellow shirts, red-shirted supporters of former Premier Thaksin Shinawatra, and latterly a series of progressive, youth-oriented ‘orange’ parties. Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, leader of Thailand’s parliamentary opposition and head of the orange People’s Party (PP), chose the 12th anniversary of the 2014 military coup to post a blistering Facebook attack on what he calls the ‘blue regime’. According to Natthaphong, the blue regime is an alliance between Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul’s ruling Bhumjaithai Party (BJT) and the majority of Thailand’s post-2024 Senate members. By controlling most levers of civilian power, the economically influential blue regime is, claims Natthaphong, anti-democratic, builds on the 2017 military-backed Constitution and continues the authoritarian turn that began with the 2014 coup.

Thailand appointed a new Senate in 2024, and at the time not many people noticed. Journalists and scholars alike have typically concentrated mainly on the more lively House of Representatives, where no-confidence motions are debated and budgets are settled. But the Senate has assumed a growing significance of late, especially since Anutin assumed the position of prime minister in September 2025.

Why? Because BJT is widely believed to exercise a substantial grip on the Upper House, through control of the heavily dominant so-called ‘blue faction’. Voting data compiled by the Thai legal think tank iLaw suggests that around three-quarters of senators belong to this faction. The arcane process by which the Senate was selected through a system of occupational groups remains highly controversial. The process has led to accusations of voter-buying, electoral manipulation and money-laundering involving numerous senators and figures associated with BJT. The Election Commission, working with the Department of Special Investigations, has recently formally charged 53 sitting senators with improper collusion during the voting process.

Whoever controls the Senate gets to select new officials of the country’s leading independent agencies, including the judges of the Constitutional Court, and commissioners of both the Election Commission and the National Anti-Corruption Commission. These agencies have been centrally involved in actions such as party dissolutions and debarring politicians from office, so who leads them is extremely important.

The spat between Natthaphong and the self-denying blue Senators might look like a storm in a teacup – but it went to the heart of the current power struggle at the heart of the Thai state.

Natthaphong was careful not to name anyone in his critique of the blue regime, but his online post quickly triggered an in-person rebuttal, attended by almost a third of the Senate. At the press conference, Senator Pisit Apiwattanapong declared that Natthapong’s comments were clearly intended to damage the Senate. Its members, he insisted, had nothing to do with the 2014 military coup, were committed to supporting Thailand’s ‘democratic system with the King as head of state (a standard conservative form of words, specified in successive Thai constitutions), and had never abused their power. The colour blue, he insisted, was one of the colours of the Thai flag: to criticise the ‘blue regime’ was implicitly to criticise the monarchical system. He demanded an apology from Natthaphong, adding that if none was forthcoming, they were ready to pursue legal action against him.

By holding the press conference, were Pisit and the other senators admitting that they were members of the party-linked blue regime? No, Pisit insisted that they were all independent. Since these senators were not named by Natthaphong and denied being part of any blue regime, it was unclear in what legal sense they were aggrieved parties. Here was the blue paradox: dozens of senators had come to the defence of a regime which they claimed did not exist. Natthaphong responded to the press conference by repeating his criticisms of the blue faction and saying that he would be happy to explain himself in court. He added that he had nothing to apologise for. He stressed that he did not use the term ‘blue regime’ in relation to the Thai flag.

PP’s attacks on Bhumjaithai and its allies need to be seen in light of the agreement reached between the two parties back in September 2025, under which the progressive party had backed Anutin to become prime minister in exchange for his promises to call an early election and to proceed with a process of constitutional reform. PP now bitterly regrets the endorsement which helped BJT secure the largest number of parliamentary seats in the February 2026 election, leaving progressive voters alienated and disappointed. The endorsement also gave BJT almost complete control over the highly contentious process of drafting a new Constitution.

The spat between Natthaphong and the self-denying blue Senators might look like a storm in a teacup – but it went to the heart of the current power struggle at the heart of the Thai state. While opposition parties cry foul and call for a return to a rules-based game, BJT has, over the past two years, proved able to rewrite the old political rules according to its own agenda. Long-cherished checks and balances have been replaced by a one-party dominant system in which the blue side controls both houses of Parliament and gives no quarter to its rivals. The true nature and colours of Thailand’s still emerging political regime will be hotly debated for some time to come.

2026/192