In 2018, a group of Thai academics and activists established Future Forward, a progressive party favoring royal and political reforms. It was led by Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, a young and handsome businessman, eloquent, cosmopolitan and social media savvy. In the 2019 elections, Future Forward finished in third place. A year later, Future Forward was banned and Thanathorn was kicked out of politics.

Future Forward politicians later created Move Forward, a progressive-leaning party that favored royal and political reform. It was led by Pita Limjaroenrat, a young, handsome, eloquent, cosmopolitan and social media savvy businessman. In the 2023 general election, Move Forward came in first place. A year later, Move Forward was banned and Pita was kicked out of politics.

Move Forward politicians later created the People’s Party, a progressive-leaning party that favors royal and political reforms. It was led by Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, a young and handsome businessman, eloquent, cosmopolitan and social media savvy.

My point is not that when one party was banned, another was created to replace it. This is not uncommon in Thai politics or semi-democracies. Parties linked to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra are now in their third incarnation. Instead, what is new is that each new party and each new leader follows essentially the same script. To use a metaphor, they perform the same play only on different stages and with different actors playing the lead role. The lines are the same. The scenario is the same. The protagonists and antagonists are the same. The reactions and expectations of the public are the same. In other words, what the progressive movement has done is created a popular scenario that can be handed over to a new group of actors when the previous ones can no longer play.

The immediate benefit is that if the metaphorical show is canceled, someone else can find a new venue and a new lead actor, and the audience will arrive knowing they’ll see the same show. More importantly, it ensures that the party and its leader do not become too large. After all, Natthaphong is simply reading the same lines as Pita and Thanathorn before him. He knows he didn’t write the script; it’s the performer, not the playwright. He knows he’s no bigger than the show itself. Likewise, the political party knows that this is just a stage to engage the public.

As I understand it, the foundations of the Future Forward Party come from conversations between two of Thailand’s leading left-wing thinkers, Piyabutr Saengkanokkul and Chaithawat Tulathon. That Gramscism united the two men is not surprising given what they produced. What matters is what is said, not who says it. What matters is changing the opinion of the masses, not building a party. What matters is how culture changes politics, not the other way around. This is certainly a break with the dynastic politics of the Shinawatras, in which WHOnot Whatimported.

It is also a break with the vanguard of certain political parties in Southeast Asia which ended badly. There are many examples of leaders outgrowing their political party and the party becoming a subservient vehicle for an increasingly dictatorial figure, such as Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD). Or the party becomes so big that it sucks in an entire movement that was previously outside the party, as the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) did with Cambodia’s unions and civil society. But the NLD could not survive without Aung San Suu Kyi, and Cambodian civil society collapsed when the CNRP was forcibly dissolved. Thai progressives seem to have found a new way to prevent this. Its success will depend on the way in which the People’s Party presents its show from now on.