As a reflection of the polarization trends observed in Southeast Asian politics in recent years, the general election held in Thailand on Sunday, 8 February 2026, signaled a process in which competition between two opposing political visions proved decisive. The election was won by the Bhumjaithai Party, led by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul. This outcome constitutes a historic turning point in Thai political life, as it marks the first time in many years that a conservative party has secured a clear and decisive majority in a general election. Positioned along a conservative-royalist line, the party stands out for its emphasis on nationalist rhetoric, loyalty to the monarchical structure, and the preservation of the existing political order. Its social and political support base is derived largely from former bureaucratic elites, military circles, and pro-monarchy constituencies.
In contrast to this emphasis on conservative continuity, an alternative political orientation became increasingly visible during the electoral process. Represented by the People’s Party, this trajectory was shaped around demands for change, calls for constitutional reform, and the promise of a more inclusive democratic order. Indeed, in the 2023 general election, the party’s predecessor, the Move Forward Party, secured the highest number of votes and parliamentary seats, achieving a significant success against its rivals within the military-royalist political establishment. However, it was prevented from forming a government due to the obstruction of senators appointed by the military. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court ruled that the party’s program—particularly its proposal to reform the lèse-majesté law, which imposes severe penalties for criticism of the monarchy—was unconstitutional and ordered the dissolution of the party.[i]
Despite these political interventions, the reformist trajectory was not entirely eliminated; rather, it reorganized under the umbrella of the People’s Party and acquired a renewed programmatic framework. The party articulated a comprehensive transformation agenda aimed at limiting the concentration of economic and political power, balancing the influence of the military within the public sphere, restructuring the expansive and centralized bureaucratic apparatus, and reforming the education system in line with contemporary norms. Over the eight years since the movement’s inception, this reformist agenda has generated significant societal resonance—particularly among younger generations—and has consequently enhanced the party’s capacity for political mobilization.
It is worth recalling that the People’s Party agreed to support Anutin on the condition that an early election be called and that a referendum be initiated to rewrite the constitution drafted during the period of military intervention. As a result of this political compromise, Anutin assumed the premiership late last year with the backing of the People’s Party, which constituted the largest bloc in Parliament. In line with this agreement, voters cast their ballots not only in the 8 February general election but also in a concurrent referendum on whether the 2017 constitution, prepared under military rule, should be reformed. Critics of the constitution argue that it grants extensive powers to institutions not directly elected by the public—such as the courts and the Senate—thereby constraining mechanisms of democratic representation and distorting the political balance to the detriment of elected bodies.
However, when assessed retrospectively, the People’s Party’s decision appears to have been a strategically contentious move. By extending its support, the party enabled Anutin to benefit from the institutional and political resources of incumbency, provided him with the opportunity to consolidate the conservative electorate, and simultaneously risked undermining its own ideological positioning.[ii] Indeed, the most recent election results point to a clear setback for the People’s Party, which had sought to replicate the success it achieved in 2023. According to experts, the party’s earlier calls for military reform were strategically instrumentalized by Anutin to cultivate the perception that it pursued a political line insufficiently attentive to national sensitivities. This discursive framing, in turn, contributed to the erosion of the party’s public support.[iii]
Nevertheless, the election results may be understood not solely through the lens of domestic political dynamics but also in connection with developments in the realms of security and foreign policy. Following two brief border clashes with Cambodia in 2025, the Bhumjaithai Party, led by Anutin Charnvirakul, placed rising nationalist rhetoric at the center of its political strategy. By pledging to safeguard the position of deeply entrenched institutions within Thailand’s political system—such as the monarchy and the military—the party emerged as the principal representative of conservative constituencies.
Indeed, escalating tensions along the Thailand–Cambodia border significantly heightened public sensitivities regarding sovereignty and national security. Capitalizing on the nationalist climate fueled by the conflict, Anutin reintroduced commitments to construct a physical wall along the Thailand–Cambodia frontier and to enhance military capacity, thereby positioning security-centered discourse as one of the core pillars of his electoral campaign.
This security-centered political framework generated a more complex landscape for the opposition. The escalation of tensions along the Cambodia–Thailand border compelled the People’s Party to navigate a politically delicate balance. The party found itself constrained between accommodating heightened national security sensitivities and maintaining its commitment to military and monarchical reform, thereby narrowing its room for maneuver. Moreover, the conflict environment—by bolstering the military’s societal support—further complicated the party’s efforts to broaden its appeal to more moderate segments of the electorate. Considering that voter behavior during periods of crisis tends to gravitate toward political actors emphasizing stability, order, and strong leadership, the election outcome may be interpreted as a reflection of security-driven preferences at the ballot box.
At the same time, the occasionally unpredictable character of U.S. foreign policy during President Donald Trump’s tenure deepened perceptions of strategic uncertainty among allied states in the region. For a traditional U.S. ally such as Thailand, this environment may have encouraged a political orientation prioritizing internal cohesion and order in the face of external threats. In this context, the election results suggest that voter preferences were shaped not only by domestic political dynamics but also by the regional security environment and uncertainties surrounding global power balances. The overall picture indicates that, under current conditions, Thai society opted for predictability and stability rather than embarking upon a comprehensive reform process.
The market response in the aftermath of the election further reinforces this orientation. Expectations that the risk of political instability would comparatively diminish were positively reflected in financial markets; the Thai stock exchange rose by approximately 3%, reaching its highest level in over a year.[iv] This development indicates that investors have interpreted the election outcome, at least in the short term, as a factor reinforcing stability.
This economic optimism corresponds with the distribution of political power generated by the electoral outcome. According to data released by the Election Commission, Bhumjaithai secured 194 of the 500 seats in the Thai Parliament, outperforming its rivals by a considerable margin. The People’s Party, which had appeared to lead in pre-election opinion polls, fell short of expectations by winning 118 parliamentary seats. Meanwhile, the populist Pheu Thai Party—representing the political legacy of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra—obtained 74 seats, thereby positioning itself as the third-largest force in parliament.[v] Although the Bhumjaithai Party emerged from the elections as the largest political force, Anutin Charnvirakul must secure 251 seats—constituting a simple majority in Parliament—in order to be re-elected as prime minister. The party’s inability to attain this threshold on its own renders coalition-building an unavoidable prerequisite for government formation.
The left-leaning People’s Party has explicitly declared that it will not participate in a potential coalition government to be formed under the leadership of Anutin Charnvirakul. By contrast, there is a strong prevailing view within political circles that the Pheu Thai Party may respond favorably to an invitation to join a coalition government led by the Bhumjaithai Party.[vi]At the same time, the fact that a significant portion of the seats in the Senate is occupied by figures closely aligned with Bhumjaithai enhances the likelihood that the party could establish a decisive influence—and potentially de facto control—over both chambers of Parliament. The election results indicate that Bhumjaithai will enter coalition negotiations from a highly advantageous position. In forming a government, the party is unlikely to be compelled to allocate key ministerial portfolios to smaller parties; rather, it will be able to cooperate with a limited number of partners while retaining primary control over the executive.
The Prime Minister has previously stated that, should he return to office, the current ministers of finance, foreign affairs, and commerce would retain their posts within the new cabinet configuration. This declaration—signaling the preservation of key economic and diplomatic portfolios—offers a commitment to “policy continuity,” particularly reassuring markets and investors in the post-election climate of uncertainty. Expectations that there will be no abrupt shifts in fiscal and trade policy may further strengthen perceptions of macroeconomic stability.
Nevertheless, this emphasis on continuity does not eliminate the structural challenges confronting the Thai economy. Prolonged political instability has weighed on growth performance for years, leading some observers to characterize the country as the “new sick man of Asia.” The modest growth rate of only 1.5% recorded last year concretely illustrates this fragile economic outlook.[vii] For this reason, Anutin appears to regard the strong popular mandate secured in the elections not merely as an endorsement to maintain existing policies, but also as an opportunity to consolidate political stability and advance business-oriented reforms.
Similarly, the continuation of the Foreign Minister in office signals the preservation of existing foreign policy priorities. This development conveys the message that Thailand is unlikely to experience a radical shift in its external orientation, particularly at a time when great power competition has intensified. In the post-election period, the emphasis thus appears to rest on “stability” rather than “change.”
As one of the oldest U.S. allies in Asia, Thailand is likely to pursue a balance-oriented strategy grounded in pragmatic national interests, rather than aligning itself rigidly with any single major power. At the same time, Anutin has demonstrated an intention to assume a more active role within the framework of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), particularly with regard to the ongoing civil conflict in Myanmar, thereby seeking to contribute to regional stability.
In conclusion, the 8 February elections in Thailand signified not merely a shift in the balance of power among political parties, but also revealed how voter priorities have been shaped under prevailing conditions. At a time marked by heightened security concerns and deepening regional and global uncertainties, the electorate appears to have favored a political trajectory promising predictability, order, and institutional continuity over an ambitious and potentially risky reform agenda. While Bhumjaithai’s success has reinforced the societal legitimacy of the conservative-royalist axis, it also demonstrates that, despite sustaining its discursive influence, the reformist movement continues to face constraints in building broad-based coalitions.
Nevertheless, the emerging landscape does not indicate the end of political contestation in Thailand; rather, it suggests the beginning of a new phase. Economic vulnerabilities, ongoing debates over constitutional reform, and the external pressures generated by intensifying great power competition will remain key parameters shaping the government’s room for maneuver in the period ahead. Thus, although the election results reflect the short-term ascendancy of a search for stability, Thai politics in the medium to long term is likely to continue evolving along the fault line between demands for structural transformation and reform, and a security- and order-centered political approach.
[i] “The pro-democrcy People’s party is leading the polls, but Thailand has been here before”, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/07/the-pro-democracy-peoples-party-is-leading-the-polls-but-thailand-has-been-here-before, (Date of Access: 10.09.2026).
[ii] “Seeking Stability, Thai Voters Decisively Reject Progressive Party”, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/08/world/asia/thailand-election-opposition-conservatives.html, (Date of Access: 09.02.2026).
[iii] Ibid..
[iv] “Thailand’s ruling party readies for coalition talks after big election win”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/thailands-bhumjaithai-prepares-coalition-talks-after-big-election-win-2026-02-09/, (Date of Access: 10.02.2026).
[v] Ibid.
[vi] “Thailand’s conservative Bhumjaithai party top polls but will need partners to form government”, AP News, https://apnews.com/article/thailand-election-anutin-peoples-politics-bhumjaithai-13e29b82fc2127a7de3bd2a1f332405a, (Date of Access: 10.02.2026).
[vii] “What Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul’s Election Means for Thailand and the World”, TIME, https://time.com/7373034/prime-minister-anutin-charnvirakul-thailand-election-result-bhumjaithai-interview-takeaways/, (Date of Access: 10.02.2026).
