The Bhumjaithai Party, under the leadership of Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, appears determined to spend its four months in power pursuing aggressive populist measures.
The underlying calculation is simple: the party cannot afford political missteps in the run-up to the next election. Instead, it must leave a strong impression with policies that appeal directly to the electorate, cementing a reputation as the ‘people’s party’ and building a foundation for its return to government.
This strategy is neither new nor surprising, said a political observer. Thai politics has long revolved around populism, with different administrations competing to deliver direct benefits to ordinary citizens in the form of subsidies, welfare and development schemes.
But for Bhumjaithai, the stakes are uniquely high. Having entered government in an unstable and fragmented political environment, the party is acutely aware that its survival beyond this brief stint depends on how effectively it can brand itself as indispensable to voters, said the observer.
The BJT’s embrace of populism serves not only as a way to win hearts but also as a political shield. The party has faced accusations of having engaged in dealmaking, opportunism in shifting alliances, and being a pragmatic but not particularly principled political actor.
Delivering tangible benefits to people allows the party to deflect those charges. If it can demonstrate that, despite the chaos of politics, it produces outcomes that improve daily lives, accusations of inconsistency may matter less at the ballot box.
In recent weeks, Bhumjaithai has doubled down on policies that resonate with lower- and middle-income voters. The much-touted Khon La Khrueng co-payment subsidy scheme has been highlighted as a signature move. The tone is clear: this is not about long-term reform or institutional restructuring, but immediate relief offered in the form of a spending stimulus. For a party seeking to maximise short-term political capital, such a choice is logical as well as mandatory, the observer said.
The challenge lies in the brevity of its current governing term, resulting from the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) struck with the main opposition People’s Party in return for the latter’s vote in parliament that handed Mr Anutin the premiership.
With less than four months before calling the next general, there is limited room for the government to implement and demonstrate the impact of policies. This is why Bhumjaithai is opting for highly visible measures that can generate a ‘quick win’. The optics matter as much as the actual economic advantages, the observer said.
However, structural reforms – such as overhauling land laws, revamping the bureaucracy, or tackling systemic corruption – require time and often face entrenched resistance. They offer little immediate political payoff. For a party with not much time, they are an unaffordable luxury. Populism, in such a context, becomes not just a preference but a necessity.
There is a clear historical logic behind this strategy. Thaksin Shinawatra’s governments in the early 2000s, and later the Pheu Thai Party, successfully leveraged populist policies – universal healthcare, village funds, rice pledging schemes – to establish loyalty among large segments of the population.
While Bhumjaithai cannot replicate these policies wholesale, it can borrow from the playbook. By tying its name to policies with immediate impact, it hopes to create a reservoir of goodwill that lasts beyond this brief tenure.
What makes Bhumjaithai’s case different is that it does not command the same entrenched political machine as Pheu Thai, nor does it have as strong a base in the North or Northeast. Instead, its influence lies in the lower Northeast and some parts of the South, where populist measures could shift loyalties in its favour. Expanding such bases requires bold and highly publicised interventions that can sway undecided voters, the observer said.
Populism, however, carries risks. Critics argue that cash handouts and short-term subsidies may win votes but exacerbate fiscal burdens without addressing structural problems. Thailand’s economy remains sluggish, debt levels are rising, and inequality persists. Populism in the absence of reform can be likened to applying a plaster to a deep wound.
Moreover, BJT’s rivals are not standing still. Pheu Thai and the People’s Party are also competing on populist terrain, offering their own versions of debt relief, income support, and welfare expansion. The political arena could boil down to a contest of who can promise more, faster. In that context, Bhumjaithai may struggle to distinguish itself unless it delivers policies that are both unique and credible.
Another limitation is trust, according to a political source. Populist promises must be backed by effective execution. If voters perceive that Bhumjaithai’s policies are poorly implemented or lack follow-through, the strategy could backfire, reinforcing accusations that the party is opportunistic rather than reliable. Execution in just four months, under the glare of political opponents and the media, is a daunting challenge.
Despite these risks, the source said Bhumjaithai’s gamble is rational. The party cannot rely solely on elite dealmaking or coalition bargaining to secure its future; voter legitimacy is essential.
Populism provides a pathway to that legitimacy. By ensuring that people feel immediate benefits under its watch, the party hopes to embed itself in the electorate’s memory as a government that delivered when it had the chance.
Whether this strategy succeeds depends on two factors: the party’s ability to outcompete rivals in promising and delivering populist measures, and its capacity to withstand the fiscal and political scrutiny that will inevitably follow. In a crowded field of populist contenders, standing out is no easy task.
In the end, Bhumjaithai’s short-term populist push reflects both the opportunities and constraints of Thai politics today. The party knows that four months is too short to transform institutions but long enough to shape perceptions. It is betting that highly visible populist policies will overshadow criticism of opportunism and position it as a credible player at the next election.
If the strategy works, Bhumjaithai could emerge stronger, having turned a brief tenure into a springboard for long-term relevance. If it fails, the party risks being remembered not for delivering benefits but for overpromising and underdelivering in a fleeting moment of power.
Returning to the party fold
The Democrats gathered on Saturday to elect a new leader and executive board, in a vote that has stirred excitement among long-time supporters, many of whom have expressed strong support for the return of former party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva.
The meeting follows the resignation of Chalermchai Sri-on as party leader on Sept 12. Mr Chalermchai stepped down after four Democrat MPs defied a party resolution to abstain from the prime ministerial vote.
Mr Abhisit himself resigned as the Democrat leader in 2019 to take responsibility for the party’s poor performance in that year’s general election. The party won 52 seats in both the constituency and party-list systems.
Shortly after, he stepped down as an MP to avoid voting for former prime minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, but remained a party member.
After keeping a low profile, Mr Abhisit vied for the party leadership in December 2023, but he withdrew from the race at the last minute and announced his resignation from the party. His departure was followed by that of long-serving members, including Sathit Pitutecha, Sathit Wongnongtoey and Orn-anong Kanchanachusak.
Mr Abhisit’s return has re-energised many veteran Democrats, such as Korbsak Sabhavasu and Khunying Supatra Masdit, who have already announced their return to the party.
Khunying Supatra wrote on her Facebook that her decision was motivated by the belief that it was time to help bring the Democrat Party ‘back to the hearts of the people who once supported it’ and ‘return the party to its true owners – Thais who have long shared its ideals’.
Chaichana Dechdecho, acting deputy party leader, also recently took a group of 20 provincial administrative organisation (PAO) members to apply for Democrat Party membership at a local meeting in Nakhon Si Thammarat’s Ron Phibun district.
Mr Chaichana confirmed that he and the group supported Mr Abhisit’s return to the party leadership, calling him ‘the right person’ to guide the party through renewal and help it regain public confidence.
Former deputy party leader Korn Chatikavanij also posted a picture with prominent figures, including economist Santitarn Sathirathai, business guru Karndee Leopairote, and former higher education, science and innovations minister Suvit Maesincee.
The social media post sparked talk that these individuals might support Mr Abhisit, either as outsiders or as potential party members. The former prime minister also emerged as the favourite to lead the Democrat Party into the next election, according to a National Institute of Development Administration (Nida) poll.
About 32.9% of respondents favoured Mr Abhisit’s return, highlighting his enduring recognition among voters, while Suvicha Pouaree, director of the Nida Poll centre, expressed belief that the Democrats could secure as much as 10% of the vote under Mr Abhisit’s leadership.
However, political observers question whether Mr Abhisit’s comeback can truly restore the party to its former glory, as Mr Abhisit’s qualifications alone may not help attract votes, especially among young voters.
Olarn Thinbangtieo, a political scientist at Burapha University, said he does not expect Mr Abhisit to cause a dramatic turnaround, and the best hope for the former Democrat leader is to revive the party’s support among middle-class voters in Bangkok who believe in the Democrats’ values.
‘Winning a significant number of seats now depends on constituency networks – the baan yai [political families](#) in the provinces,’ he said.
According to Mr Olarn, the party’s baan yai, such as the Pitutecha family in Rayong, the Wongnongtoey family in Trang, and the Issarasenarak family in Nakhon Nayok, were admired for their integrity and close ties with local communities.
These political families do not project the image of wayward political godfathers or business tycoons, which stands in stark contrast to the party’s current image, said the academic.
Mr Abhisit will have to manage the baan yai carefully so that they do not dominate the party and do not feel alienated or sidelined, he said.
‘Some of them won’t leave the party but will try to use Mr Abhisit’s reputation to benefit themselves. He has an image of honesty and credibility that remains widely respected,’ said Mr Olarn.
Given its long history as the country’s oldest political party, the analyst described the Democrats as ‘a party that never dies but never grows’, adding that this is the key challenge Mr Abhisit must confront.
‘It is his burden to persuade veteran members to return while guiding the younger MPs from political families to follow in the footsteps of their predecessors,’ he said.
‘At the same time, he must nurture a new generation of candidates for both constituency and party-list systems to lay a firm and steady foundation for long-term growth.