EDITORIAL-OP ED | Why Thailand’s diversionary strategy is dangerous
The idea of political elites resorting to external conflicts to distract from domestic problems is not new.
In international politics, this phenomenon is commonly known as the diversionary theory of war, or the scapegoat hypothesis.
It suggests that leaders under domestic pressure—facing political instability, economic stagnation, or declining legitimacy—may adopt aggressive foreign policies or even provoke limited military confrontations to unify the nation and consolidate power.
In Thailand’s case, this appears to be resurfacing along its border with Cambodia.
Thailand has been caught in a cycle of coups, constitutional crises, and elite rivalries since 2006, when the military overthrew Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Nearly two decades later, the country remains mired in a struggle between conservative royalist-military elites and reform-minded civilian forces aligned with the Thaksin network.
The monarchy-military nexus has effectively entrenched itself as the guardian of the traditional power structure, determined to prevent any elected civilian government from challenging its authority.
Despite periodic elections, Thai democracy has functioned under tight constraints. The Constitution is rewritten, parties are dissolved, and political leaders are banned or imprisoned—all tools designed to maintain the power base of the royalist-military elites.
@[email protected]
.
The current government, led by Anutin Charnvirakul of the Bhumjaithai Party, is navigating an extremely fragile coalition. His party, a minority partner, is struggling to project stability as public confidence wanes amid an economic slowdown and popular discontent.
For Anutin, who must keep his coalition afloat ahead of the next general election, the temptation to employ diversionary tactics is high. By projecting an image of strength on national security issues—particularly vis-à-vis Cambodia—he can temporarily deflect attention from Thailand’s domestic malaise and rally nationalist sentiment.
@[email protected]
From domestic discontent to border tensions
Economic stagnation, inflationary pressures, and declining investor confidence have all contributed to widespread frustration. Thailand’s growth has been sluggish compared with its regional peers, and structural problems—such as inequality, high household debt, rural discontent, and youth unemployment—persist.
In such a context, border disputes can conveniently serve as a rallying cry for national unity and a show of leadership.
More tensions along the border with Cambodia, the result of serious violations of the ceasefire by Thailand, should therefore be read not only as territorial or security issues but also as instruments of political theatre.
@[email protected]
By amplifying the narrative of external threats, Thai leaders can mobilise domestic support and redirect public anger outward. Historical precedent reinforces this pattern: the 2011 border clashes over the Preah Vihear Temple coincided with moments of deep political division within Thailand, when the military and the monarchy’s allies sought to portray themselves as defenders of the nation’s sovereignty.
Today’s situation is similar. With the Thaksin network in decline—Thaksin himself behind bars and his daughter Paetongtarn ousted from the premiership—the once-formidable populist bloc is fractured.
Meanwhile, the reformist People’s Party (successor to the dissolved Move Forward Party) continues to dominate opinion polls but remains effectively excluded from power. Its predecessor, Move Forward, won the most seats in the 2023 election, only to be blocked from forming a government by conservative forces.
In 2024, the Constitutional Court dissolved Move Forward over its proposal to amend the lèse-majesté law, and its leader Pita Limjaroenrat was banned from politics for a decade.
Such developments reveal the deep structural asymmetry in Thai politics: electoral legitimacy is repeatedly overridden by unelected institutions. The People’s Party, which lacks an eligible prime-ministerial candidate, still commands significant popular support.
For the entrenched establishment, this presents an existential threat, giving it the incentive to shift political discourse from reform to nationalism.
@[email protected]
Manufacturing a ‘rally-around-the-flag’ effect
In political psychology, the rally-around-the-flag effect describes how leaders can boost popularity during crises by appealing to patriotism. In Thailand’s current environment, border provocations offer a low-cost but high-impact way to engineer such an effect.
A controlled escalation with Cambodia—through diplomatic spats, military posturing, or inflammatory rhetoric—can create the perception of external threat. This narrative diverts public attention from domestic failures while forcing opposition forces to tread carefully, lest they be branded as “unpatriotic.”
Moreover, nationalist mobilisation can unify divided conservative factions, allowing Anutin and the military establishment to maintain leverage ahead of the elections.
However, this strategy carries regional security risks. It undermines regional stability, strains ASEAN unity, and damages bilateral relations with Cambodia. Any escalation would not only threaten lives along the border but also jeopardise economic cooperation and cross-border development projects that benefit local communities on both sides.
@[email protected]
Broader implications
Thailand’s diversionary tendencies expose a deeper problem: the militarisation of politics and the instrumentalisation of nationalism. When political legitimacy is derived not from democratic performance but from coercion and symbolic defense of the monarchy, foreign policy becomes a convenient stage for domestic contestation.
The diversionary strategy may offer temporary political relief, but it is ultimately self-defeating. Thailand must instead focus on addressing the root causes of domestic issues: inequality, elite capture, middle income trap, and the erosion of democratic institutions.
If Bangkok continues down the path of external diversion, it risks eroding its international credibility while leaving the root causes of domestic unrest unaddressed.
The lesson is clear: no government can build lasting legitimacy on the fragile foundation of manufactured conflict. True strength lies not in provoking neighbours, but in restoring trust, unity, and confidence among your own people.
.
THE EDITOR
|
|
Related Posts
-
August 8, 2025 -
August 22, 2025
VIDEO of the DAY: Thai Army to Release 18 Captured Cambodian Soldiers
-
September 12, 2025 -
September 19, 2025
