The Democrats took some observers by surprise by winning 23 out of 33 constituencies in Bangkok. Given that pollsters have placed Pheu Thai in the clear lead, coupled with rising inflation and a few policy missteps earlier this year, many predicted Bangkok too would vote for change.
From the constituency basis alone, it seems that more Bangkokians preferred a status quo to change. The Democrats were able to retain the majority of the districts they won in the 2007 elections (see Table 1) – having lost only Dusit but gained Bangkapi and Nong Khaem in return. Meanwhile, the majority of constituencies that Pheu Thai won in this election are former Thai Rak Thai strongholds.
Yet a more careful look into electoral results reveals that out of the 23 constituencies the Democrats managed to win over in this election, 10 of them represent a tight race, whereby Democrats candidates beat their Pheu Thai counterparts by less than 5% of the votes. Sripathum University calculates that overall the Democrats actually lost, on a numerical basis, 31% of the votes in Bangkok alone, 14% of which went to Pheu Thai, while 7% went to Chuvit’s Rak Prathet Thai.[i]
While this represents a setback for the Democrat Party’s electoral base in Bangkok, it is not a stunning defeat per se. Bangkok is not “traditionally” a Bangkok stronghold as many have argued. Indeed, in the past 5 national elections, Bangkok voters have swung back and forth between the Democrats and Thai Rak Thai/Pheu Thai. This is summarised in Table 1. In the 1996 election, the Democrats won outright 9 out of 13 electoral districts.[ii] On the contrary, in the 2001 and 2005 elections, they managed to gain only 8/36 and 4/37 constituencies respectively. The Democrat Party made a major comeback in the 2007 election, sweeping 27 out of 36 seats in Bangkok.
The Democrats were still going strong in the local elections last year, sweeping 210/256 seats in the Council and 45/61 seats in the District Council.[iii] The election took place just weeks after the bloody event in May of 2010, indicating that a number of Bangkok locals did not condemn Abhisit’s handling of the crisis.
So what went wrong?
The rising inflation and the Democrats’ measures to battle high living costs may contribute to their decline in popularity among some urban voters. Research from Kasikornbank released in April warned that a jump in the prices of some staple items, coupled with a sharp rise in the inflation rate to four per cent in the same month, is a major concern for the government. Abhisit’s measures to deal with high food prices, such as the government’s egg policy, have proved hugely unpopular.[iv] Shortages of cooking oil earlier this year dealt a heavy blow to the government’s ability to look out for the interests of regular folks.
The economic vote, then, may have made a dent on the Democrat’s popularity.
[i] Krunthep Turakij Online. July 5, 2011. “р╣Ар╕Ир╕▓р╕░р╕ер╕╢р╕Б!р╣Ар╕кр╕╡р╕вр╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕лр╕▓р╕вр╣Др╕Ыр╕Вр╕нр╕З р╕Ыр╕Кр╕Ы.”
[ii] This means all 3 Democrat candidates won in multi-member constituencies.
The difference a year made. I suspect some in the Democrat Party are ruing they didn’t go to the polls in November last year.
0
0
Agreed Les,
Democrats really showed that they alarmingly lack any sort of leadership skills and even the ability to think strategically.
They show the same alarming lack of vision/skill/masterplan with running the country as well.
Given that corruption is the same, no wonder PTP got a mandate!
Having said that, I hope the Democrats revamp themselves fully and become a party that can actually act to meet the needs of the people. Their failure to do so makes them just as culpable as the government to reign in and abuse power.
See how PTP played in the Opposition? No matter what levers of the state the BJT and Dem did, they still won a mandate! That’s the Dem challenge, and its now proven that it doesn’t matter what media/airwaves/etc. etc. etc. you own and run, if you run well, and you are capable, people will vote for you. Simply being ‘good’ and ineffective is not needed.
0
0
Are their any data available on how different age groups voted?
0
0
What was the turnout in Bangkok? Normally it is much lower – about 60% – than the national average.
0
0
It is indeed surprising how many people, including Thai journalists, still adhere to the idea that BKK is a “traditional stronghold” of the Democrats. In fact, they have only won high numbers of seats when the Bangkok voters saw no better electoral option around. Therefore, when the Prachakorn Thai, Phalang Dharma, and then the TRT were around, the Democrats fared poorly in BKK.
0
0
For the whole country, the popularity of Democrats has been declining since the shortage of palm oil crisis in February.
The BKK voter turnout is 71% while the whole country is 75%.
BKK overall result of party list is very close ie Democrat 1,277,669 and Pue Thai 1,209,508. It’s obvious that Democrats got more votes in the central part of BKK while PT got more in the periphery of BKK. This is due to the influx of people from the north, north eastern people to the suburban area during last few decades. PT also won all seat except only one in the para-BKK provinces, Nontaburi, Pratumtani, SamutPrakarn.
Why? Of course, most of the BKK newcomer are of lower socio-economic status than the original Bangkokians. Those middle class people, elsewhere in the country, are financial secure and likely to be scared of Thaksin, due to the main media, so they had to vote for Democrats.
This is the war between classes, definitely not brand loyalty of Bangkokians.
0
0
In addition, Democrat only win by 96,000 vote from 2.7 million voters.
0
0
The turnout in BKK was 72% (for both)
Constituency: Vote No 6%; Bad ballots 5.4%
Party-list stats: Vote No 4.4%; Bad ballots: 2%
0
0
All of the reasons others have mentioned.
I wonder if anyone in their party actually rues the day when they became embroiled in PAD/yellow/establishment games. Things may be very different now if they had actually denoucned the coup (without opposing it with street demos) and had stayed well clear of the PAD. And of course that they didnt not only lost them votes but also left them so badly undermined as a party that they are almost unelectable to government. All they seem to be now are the party that those that dont like Thaksin or who are scared of the reds vote for. Short term it has boosted their numbers over the Chuan past, but it has also put a lid on where those numbers can go. The urge for short term power has actually left them in a position where the long term goal of winning an election is now almost certainly a lot further off than it was back in 2005
0
0
Imtiaz Muqbil has a distinctive take on the urban/rural divide.
http://www.travel-impact-newswire.com/2011/07/divided-thailand-faces-short-term-gain-long-term-pain/
Some may consider some relevant issues are omitted from this bizarre piece of dishonest and partisan analysis.
0
0
Dixie: The Democrate really needs an urgently change in their party. Otherwise they cannot survive in the changing. But I wonder can they do so. It seems like they are more too beurocratic/conservative. Even they had several excellence campaigns, but could not communicate well enough to the people who benefit form (even who are grass root people) e.g. a co-pay coverage program for unregistered labour, credit card refinance (some were criticized as to buy a popularity).
0
0
As a sidebar to to this, check out a very curiously written piece (not sure whether to call it a “report”) in today’s Bangkok Post – of all places: http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investigation/246320/slum-dwellers-cash-in-as-rent-a-mobs-for-rallies
Old habits die hard, so the Post uses its all-too-familiar “rent-a-mob” tag. But the stark fact is that this was rent-a-crowd for Democrat rallies in BKK – though the writer seems unable to bring himself to use the word; the “big party” concerned is not named even once in the piece. A bizarre omission given that specific dates, venues and even those who “presided” at the rallies are identified – i.e. Abhisit and Bangkok Governor MR Sukhumbhand…..
The piece points out that the results of the Post’s “investigation” into both the rent-a-crowd aspect and alleged vote-buying in BKK (by the same “big party”) have been forwarded to the EC. Given that the EC are solemnly investigating Yingluck’s supposed “Noodlegate” incident, it’s hard to imagine that even they will not feel obliged to do the same in this instance.
0
0
[…] Yet a more careful look into electoral results reveals that out of the 23 constituencies the Democrats managed to win over in this election, 10 of them represent a tight race, whereby Democrats candidates beat their Pheu Thai counterparts by less than 5% of the votes. Sripathum University calculates that overall the Democrats actually lost, on a numerical basis, 31% of the votes in Bangkok alone, 14% of which went to Pheu Thai, while 7% went to Chuvit’s Rak Prathet Thai.[i] […]
0
0