What Party Fragility Tells Us about Thailand’s Political Trajectory

The February 2026 General Elections in Thailand is more than a contest that determines who governs next; it also offers a peek into the condition of Thailand’s political parties and the extent to which they remain weakly institutionalised. Given the scale of party switching, ideological fluidity, and the growing convergence of party platforms observed thus far, party fragility in Thailand is no longer a transitional problem but a structural equilibrium. This equilibrium has been systematically reproduced by constitutional constraints, repeated political disruptions, and strategic adaptation by political actors. Together, these conditions have made survival-oriented behaviour, rather than ideological competition, the dominant logic of party politics in Thailand.  

One of the most visible features of this fragility is unprecedented party switching. As many as 110 incumbent MPs have changed party affiliations in the run-up to the election, including the tactical absorption of MPs from the moderate conservative Chartthaipattana Party into the Bhumjaithai Party (BJT). Rather than signalling ideological realignment, this mass migration reflects strategic adaptation by individual politicians operating in an environment where party labels carry limited electoral value. Many of them are abandoning parties closely associated with the 2014 coup, most notably Palang Pracharath and United Thai Nation, after witnessing their decline as electoral vehicles favoured by Thailand’s elite networks and reliable conduits for patronage and financial resources.

Paradoxically, the decline of these parties does not represent the retreat of conservative interests from electoral politics. Instead, those interests seem to have coalesced around BJT, now a principal home for politicians seeking resources and protection under a brand of conservatism. This emphasises nationalism and religion, and invokes royalist symbolism while remaining cautious toward rapid political reform.

Party switching does not simply undermine the parties which politicians leave behind. It also generates high electoral volatility, weakens partisan attachment, and compromises voters’ ability to attribute responsibility. These are essential ingredients of a stable party system that structures electoral competition and facilitates democratic accountability.

Yet, party switching is merely one symptom of a much larger crisis of faith in Thai political parties. Polling ahead of this election shows that as many as 7.8 per cent of voters remain undecided, compared with only about 2.35 per cent at the same stage before the 2023 election. While undecided voters do not necessarily indicate distrust, the scale of indecision nevertheless signals a weakening sense of attachment and confidence toward parties they had previously supported.

The 2026 Thai General Elections should not be understood merely as a contest for power, but as a revealing indicator of deeper institutional pathologies.

Partisan loyalty has eroded, in large part, due to ideologically incongruent alliances formed after the 2023 General Elections. Pheu Thai (PT) suffered a legitimacy deficit after its decision to form a governing coalition with parties linked to the 2014 coup. Its inability to deliver flagship policies after 2 years of unstable governance — marked by the removal of its prime ministers and frequent cabinet reshuffles —has reinforced voter scepticism. The People’s Party (PP), meanwhile, faced backlash for supporting Anutin Charnvirakul as prime minister, a move perceived by segments of its reformist base as a betrayal of its ideological commitments.

At a time when these alliances between strange bedfellows have rendered parties increasingly indistinguishable on ideological grounds, the ideological space for reform has also shrunk. Contentious issues, most notably reform of Section 112 of the Criminal Code (commonly known as the lèse-majesté law), have been deliberately muted in this election campaign. Policy retreat is also evident in military reform. PP has abandoned calls to abolish conscription in favour of voluntary recruitment, while PT’s earlier commitments to demilitarisation were diluted after it entered the erstwhile ruling coalition with conservative forces.

Rising nationalism, intensified by the Thai-Cambodian border dispute, has further narrowed the discursive space between conservative and progressive camps. Appeals to sovereignty, border security, and national unity have increasingly crowded out debates on structural reform that previously energised Thai voters in the 2023 election.

As a result, policy differentiation has diminished to the point that party platforms no longer serve as defining electoral assets. Both the People’s Party and Pheu Thai propose similar initiatives, such as a “receipt lottery” to broaden the tax base. Many parties also converge on short-term measures such as elderly allowances and reduced mass transit fares. In this increasingly homogenised policy environment, programmatic competition has largely been overshadowed by candidate-centred strategies, patronage networks, and access to state resources, of which BJT is arguably the clearest embodiment. Despite featuring more technocratic outsiders this time around, BJT still leans more on performative leadership than on coherent policy agendas, whereas its real strength remains its local electoral machine.

Yet despite surface-level convergence, Thai society remains deeply tribal. Electoral competition is increasingly structured around in-group loyalty and us-versus-them dynamics, fragmenting voters into different political groups divided along partisan alignment and sustained through attacks on opposing entities. Political identities operate less as policy preferences than as social affiliations, reinforced by media ecosystems and moral narratives. The result is a paradoxical condition: intense political polarisation persists even as parties grow increasingly similar in programmatic terms.

The 2026 Thai General Elections should not be understood merely as a contest for power, but as a revealing indicator of deeper institutional pathologies. Frequent coups, party dissolutions, leadership bans, and constitutional redesigns have repeatedly disrupted electoral continuity, depriving parties of opportunities for organisational learning and consolidation. Survival, rather than institutionalisation, has become the dominant strategic imperative. Rather than marking a hopeful step forward, the 2026 election represents another chapter in Thailand’s oft-interrupted trajectory toward party-based democracy.

2026/35