Thailand is once again grappling with a familiar crisis where nationalism, fragile coalitions, and simmering military influence converge to threaten its democratic progress. The recent protests demanding Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s resignation are more than just a reaction to a contentious border dispute with Cambodia—they symbolize the persistent undercurrent of political instability that has marred Thai governance for decades. These gatherings, led by nationalist groups like the United Force of the Land, tap into a historical pattern where public dissent gradually morphs into institutional and military interventions, undermining civilian rule.
Rather than merely being an inconvenient backlash, the protest reflects deeper grievances about sovereignty and identity that resonate strongly in a country with a history of coups. Paetongtarn, scion of the Shinawatra political legacy, faces challenges reminiscent of her predecessors but under even more precarious circumstances. Her government’s razor-thin coalition majority illustrates how tenuous Thai democracy remains, vulnerable both to internal splits and external provocations. The border row with Cambodia has thus become a convenient proxy for nationalist sentiments, threatening to destabilize an already fragile political order.
Military’s Shadow and the Limits of Democratic Governance
One cannot ignore the role of the military and judiciary in this unfolding drama. The leaked phone conversation between Paetongtarn and Cambodia’s former prime minister Hun Sen, in which the Thai leader appeared to indirectly criticize a top military commander, unleashed a firestorm. In Thailand, where the military is deeply entwined with political power, this was seen as crossing a red line. It sparked a withdrawal of support from the Bhumjaithai Party and triggered petitions to the Constitutional Court and a national anti-graft agency. These institutional pressures demonstrate how the military’s shadow over politics remains a decisive—if unwelcome—factor, limiting genuine democratic expression and accountability.
While Paetongtarn has professed calm and respect for peaceful protest, her position is fragile. The nexus of nationalism, military clout, and opportunistic political maneuvering is tilting the balance away from democratic normalization toward renewed instability. The fact that protests led by nationalist factions echo some of the tactics and rhetoric that previously precipitated judicial actions and military coups in 2006 and 2014 is deeply worrying. It underscores how Thailand’s political culture has yet to evolve beyond cyclical conflict and power struggles driven more by loyalty and fear than governance principles.
Diplomacy Undermined by Domestic Political Drama
Externally, the diplomatic spat with Cambodia spotlights Thailand’s vulnerability to external actors exploiting internal divisions. Hun Sen’s public denunciation of Paetongtarn and call for regime change in Bangkok is unprecedented and signals a sharp deterioration in bilateral relations. The Thai foreign ministry’s response invoking diplomacy sounds hollow when domestic political turmoil plays into Cambodia’s strategic theatrics. This public airing of grievances reveals not only a breakdown in state-to-state communication but also the dangers that personalized politics pose to national interest.
Paetongtarn seems caught between the need to assert sovereignty to appease nationalist critics and maintaining pragmatic dialogue to avoid conflict and economic fallout. Her challenge is enormous: reform a faltering economy, hold together a fractious coalition, withstand institutional investigations, and manage diplomatic fault lines—all while under siege from nationalist forces that thrive on destabilization. The ongoing crisis reveals the fragility of Thailand’s center-liberal experiment, which struggles to balance reformist goals against entrenched political cleavages and authoritarian legacies. Without decisive leadership that moves beyond identity politics and military entanglements, Thailand risks perpetuating a cycle of instability that hinders its democratic and economic aspirations.