The upcoming general election will be held on March 24 after long delays and postponements.

There was an energy in the air not felt in five years, as applicants queued up to register for the first time since 2014. But the atmosphere was quiet as the Election Commission banned candidates from organising colourful parades as in the past.

In Bangkok, candidates for constituency MPs arrived at the registration centre, the Thai-Japanese Stadium in Din Daeng, in the early hours to obtain early queue cards to draw their candidate numbers.

In previous polls, all candidates in the same party used the same number for campaigning. This time though, in a first for Thailand, each candidate will have his or her own number.

PARTIES ONE AFTER another announced their candidates for the prime minister’s post last week, a critical factor in the coming election, with voters holding a single ballot to render all of their choices.

With that single ballot, voters can select their preferred constituency candidate and a party and premier to lead the next government.

Last week amid much fanfare all the major parties revealed their nominees to take on the top government job. The names they put forward are sure to have a substantial impact on how citizens mark their ballots. The Pheu Thai Party, former lead partner in a government coalition but arch-rival to the current military-led regime, submitted three names for the top post – Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan, Chatchart Sittipan and Chaikasem Nitisiri.

The Democrat Party has stood by its long-time leader, former PM Abhisit Vejjajiva, and named no one else, despite being permitted under law to submit three alternatives. A new party built of veteran politicians, Phalang Pracharat, named Uttama Savanayana and his mentor Somkid Chatusripitak as PM candidates, but it is widely believed that Prayut Chan-o-cha, the general who led the 2014 coup, is its No 1 choice to continue as premier.

The central question, given that each voter holds only one ballot, now becomes who among the nominated will most appeal to the electorate.

Political scientist Titipol Phakdee-wanich, dean of political science at Ubon Ratchathani University, said Pheu Thai’s three choices could remain most attractive to voters despite their being frozen out of politics for five years.

Though Sudarat is seen as Pheu Thai’s de facto leader and might be its No 1 PM candidate as well, Titipol views Chatchart as the perfect contender for the premier’s job. He cites the “vision” and experience Chatchart displayed when proposing the high-speed railway mega-project five years ago.

“Chatchart is the right one to develop both democracy and the economy,” Titipol said, referring to two areas most constrained since the coup of 2014.

However, he questioned whether Pheu Thai was being sincere in putting Chatchart’s name forward.

“I don’t know if they are for real or if they just want to use his credit to lure urban, younger and middle- and upper-class voters. We have to admit that his name isn’t as appealing in the rural areas as Sudarat’s. When campaigning in the countryside, she still takes the lead.”

Lower-class voters still remember Sudarat as the health minister, he noted, and that matters because the health-related policy is one of Pheu Thai’s strong suits, in addition to other welfare schemes and its economic performance, he added.

Looking at the Democrat Party, Titipol did not consider Abhisit the best choice for prime minister, especially when it comes to promoting democracy.

“I don’t think he’s a true believer in democracy. He’s ready to compromise with anyone, including the military, and play outside the rules. If we want a good return to democracy, I don’t see Abhisit fitting as the PM.” Titipol also doubted that Abhisit would appeal much to voters any longer, despite having once been admired for his credentials as an Oxford alumnus, as well as his youth and good looks.

Democrat supporters in the South are fonder of the party’s former leader and patriarch, Chuan Leekpai, Titipol observed.

Citizens voting for Abhisit will likely be those who despise the Shinawatra camp, he said, and this time Abhisit might have to share his support with Phalang Pracharat, a stronger “brand” known as “the Shinawatra terminator”, he observed.

Phalang Pracharat’s Prayut, Uttama and Somkid could find support among voters who are the pro-junta and anti-Shinawatra, Titipol added. Other than that, he said, especially low-income earners haven’t really bought into their campaign, considering their laggard performance in the past five years.

He doesn’t see Phalang Pracharat as offering anything close to a good candidate for PM. “They’ve had no tangible accomplishments – the promised reforms never quite came through,” he said.

“This is not to mention their relation with the coup. If Prayut really returned as PM, it would spell doom for democracy in this country.”

Perhaps inevitably, election campaign songs that used to boom from loudspeakers on candidates’ roving trucks are now seeping onto social media, though more than one observer has noted that the phenomenon hasn’t exactly gone viral.

Ten of the best-known political parties vying in the March 24 election have released dozens of jingles on YouTube and on their Facebook pages since late last year.

Fundamentally, “the song remains the same”, and it’s not one of Led Zeppelin’s. There are the same dreary appeals to nostalgia or, alternatively, to futurism, the same unconvincing boasts.

What distinguishes this election season’s crop of tunes from those of the past is the sheer variety of styles. The staple choices for mustering votes – rousing marches and look tung (country folk) – are now jostling with pop rock, songs-for-life and even rap.

And for the southern provinces there are political messages set to the rhythmic chanting of nasheed, sometimes known as anasyid.

As well, since a song online has to be accompanied by a music video, we’re seeing a lot of images of the parties’ candidates for the premier’s job putting in cheerful appearances at urban venues and cheerfully touring the countryside.

Some of the videos get quite creative, with animated infographics helping to explain complex policies.

“This is the new trend for Thai political parties – making music videos for social media,” says Nantana Nantavaropas, dean of Kirk University’s Political Communication College in Bangkok.

“It’s a break from the traditional |political campaign songs they played at the rallies and from trucks decked out with posters. But so far these videos haven’t become virally popular, suggesting that they’re not reaching most voters,” Nantana told The Nation Weekend.

Candidates of all ages are well aware of the vast power of social media platforms, led by Line, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Nantana said the push is on to boost support via social networks that have high penetration among the country’s 50-million-plus voters.

Young people in particular will be targeted, especially first-time voters estimated to number around seven million, because social media are their preferred means of communication, if not their sole outlets.

Isara Choosri, a linguistics scholar at Mahidol University’s Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia, has been hearing the candidates extolling their virtues in song on the modern tech platforms.

“It’s a new way of communicating instead of promoting their campaigns in television ads. They can go on social networks to convey their party names, policies and PM candidates and you hear the messages repeated every time you use the Internet on your phone.

“They hope their campaign music has the power to influence the poll results. But winning votes involves other factors, like realistic policies that can solve problems, as well as the candidates’ leadership abilities and popularity,” Isara told The Nation Weekend. 

He noted that there’s another political song online that’s butting up against the campaign jingles – the anti-junta “Prathet Ku Me” (“What My Country’s Got”) released weeks ago by a group called Rap Against Dictatorship, but it has in turn had an influence on the candidates’ entries. Some parties have posted rap and pop-rock tunes to catch the attention of young people.

The Bhumjaithai Party has put out “Talai” (“Against All Odds”), a rap song and accompanying video starring its founder, Newin Chidchob. The video shows Newin greeting voters, while the lyrics list its proposed solutions to economic, political and social woes – and also endorses legalising cannabis for medicinal purposes.

Rap and pop rock

Jaturon Chaisang, who could be the next prime minister if Thai Raksa Chart wins the election, gets down with it too, rapping out his plans for decentralising government.

Its ally, the Pheu Thai Party, shows a preference for pop rock and deploys lyrics designed to stir every heart in its grass-roots base. Its choice for premier, Sudarat Keyuraphan, is seen in the video leading her team on visits with citizens across the country, including more than a few farmers.

The Future Forward Party, widely perceived as being more youth-oriented, commissioned a band to write a cha-cha-cha tune that spells out its motto “Uplift Adjust Change”.

“Future Forward has used a lot of ideological words to convey its policy and it gets abstract, as if meant to appeal to educated middle-class voters and the younger generation,” says Nantana. “But cha-cha-cha, as opposed to rap, might not interest young voters.”

Pop rock rules for the pro-junta Phalang Pracharat Party, its song’s lyrics pushing national reconciliation and the junta’s ambition to build a “people’s state” (pracharat) through the collaboration of government, business and the citizenry.

General Prayut Chan-o-cha does not appear in the music video, though the party has names him as one of its PM candidate since the video’s release.

The Prachachart Party, led by Wan Muhamad Nor Matha and looking to dominate the Muslim-majority South, has issued two versions of the same campaign videos, one with pop music and the other in nasheed style.

“The lyrics are quite beautiful, likening the diversity among people to that of flowers in same garden,” Isara points out.

Carabao, the revered songs-for-life band, has lent its talents to two allied parties. The Chat Pattana Party’s “No Problem” is more cha-cha-cha and fondly recalls its late founder, former PM Chatchai Chonhavan, a move that’s drawn criticism over context.

Ad Carabao personally handles the vocals on Chat Thai Pattana’s war song, which emphasises the party’s “neutrality” and readiness to work with whoever wins the election.

If the critics have an award in mind for the most boring campaign effort, the venerable Democrat Party is the likely winner. The video on YouTube doesn’t even contain images, just audio about the party’s honesty and professionalism.

The Ruam Palang Prachachat Thai party also talks about reconciliation as well as respect for the “three pillars” of nation, religious and the monarchy. There’s no sign in the video of Suthep Thaugsuban, its founder, leading viewers to surmise there was fear he would cost it votes rather than earning any.

Karn Pongprapapan, a young activist with the citizens group People Want to Vote, is utterly unimpressed with all of it.

“All the campaign videos are like propaganda,” he says. “Campaigns alone don’t influence my voting decision. We need to hear realistic policies to solve the Kingdom’s problems using democratic methods.”

Thailand’s poll, set for March 24, is the first since a 2014 coup and will kick off a busy ballot season in Asia, with polls set for India and Indonesia in the coming months.

Facebook has come under fire in a wave of scandals, including fueling hate speech in Myanmar and over the sharing of its users’ data.

The platform was also used for Russian “fake news” influence campaigns during 2016 US presidential elections.

    Facebook said in a newsroom post it would help “protect” the Thai vote by temporarily not allowing ads from “foreign entities which are of an electoral nature”.

The new rules, which cover paid-for content, will take effect from mid-February and will apply to external ads with references to “politicians, parties, ‘getting out the vote’, and/or election suppression,” the post said.

It also includes political slogans and party logos and will use both automated and “human review” to make judgment calls.

The rules are not unique to Thailand and a Facebook official described them as preventative.

“It’s something that we are working on in a variety of different elections around the globe,” Katie Harbath, Facebook’s global policy director for elections, told AFP.

“All of this is based on wanting to make sure that we’re looking at all the different ways that bad actors could exploit our platform,” she added.

Harbath said there were no specific examples of content being restricted in Thailand so far but the company was monitoring for cases where it is deemed necessary.

As in other countries in Southeast Asia, Facebook is wildly popular in Thailand where it has 52 million monthly users, according to the company.

The platform has also served as an outlet for dissent and critical voices under the junta, especially by exiles.

Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a 2006 coup and lives abroad to avoid charges he says are politically motivated, has a widely followed Facebook page.

His sister Yingluck, whose administration was toppled in the 2014 military power grab, was also driven into self-exile by court cases.

The siblings have lately appeared in family snapshots on Instagram — a platform owned by Facebook — and Thaksin has a podcast.

Sponsored or paid-for posts on their accounts about the election could be barred under the rules.

Harbath said the efforts were not meant to be aimed at regime critics.

“They are certainly still able to have pages on Facebook,” she said.

“This affects only advertising.”

Uttama, who is also party leader, stepped down from his Cabinet post on Tuesday along with three other ministers. Prayut and Somkid, however, are hanging on to their positions despite heavy criticism.

Meanwhile, the party’s secretary-general Sontirat Sontijirawong said the list is still a proposal and that the nominees’ consent will first be sought before it is handed over to the Election Commission (EC) next week. He also said the nominations had been made by party members across the country.

The Constitution requires that the PM be selected from a party list of nominees, provided the party wins at least 25 seats in the House of Representatives.

Each party can nominate up to three prime ministerial candidates.

The Constitution also allows the Parliament to waive the list and opt for an outsider provided half of the 750 members of Parliament agree to do so.

Critics believe this stipulation could very well open the way for Prayut to return as an outsider PM. However, the general insisted on Tuesday that he would only return as premier if he were nominated by a party. He also said he will confirm next week which party he plans to run under.

He has until next Friday to make a decision because that is the last day for parties to submit their lists.

Over a casual tea break yesterday, Prayut told the press that several parties wanted him as their PM |candidate, but he could only |choose one, adding that he would base his decision on their policy proposals.

As for his infamous short temper, Prayut admitted yesterday that he is learning to be more patient now.

Meanwhile, another pro-junta party Action Coalition for Thailand (ACT) has decided not to submit a PM candidates list.

Though ACT is backed by influential veteran politician Suthep Thaugsuban – who already has a substantial number of yellow-shirt supporters – party spokesman Katerut Laothamatas said yesterday that ACT was aware it will not gain enough seats to support a PM.

Separately, Pheu Thai Party, former coalition leader and arch-rival of the regime, yesterday called on Prayut to follow in the footsteps of the four Phalang Pracharat executives, who have quit their ministerial posts.

Party spokesperson Ladawan Wongsriwong said that since Prayut was a stakeholder in the election, hanging on to his post as PM will make things unfair for other players and create a sense of frustration.

Also, Prayut refusing to give up his power will cost him his credibility, Ladawan warned, adding that everybody was watching him closely, especially since all the laws appear to be serving his move to retain power.

Leader of anti-junta party Future Forward, Thanathorn Juangroong-ruangkit, joined the fray yesterday saying Prayut’s status as PM remains undemocratic even though he is |now part of a list that follows constitutional procedure.

“Prayut retains an advantage over others as the junta chief who holds absolute power over everyone in this country,” Thanathorn said.

They were found not guilty by the Appeals Court which ruled that their protests under the now-defunct People’s Alliance for Democracy, or so-called yellow shirts, were conducted peacefully and according to democratic principles.

They were Chamlong Srimuang, Sondhi Limthongkul, Pipob Thongchai, Somkiat Pongpaiboon, Somsak Kosaisuk, Suriyasai Katasila, Chaiwat Sinsuwongse, Amorn Amornrattanon and Therdpoom Jaidee.

They were accused of attempting to use force to change the government and instigating chaos in the country. They moved their protesters around in Bangkok, blocked roads and seized government offices.

They were also accused of possessing weapons such as baseball bats, iron bars and catapults.

The Appeals Court dismissed the accusation, saying that the public prosecutors could not charge the defendants as they have already faced similar charges in another trial.

The court also found that the defendants were not guilty when they obstructed the authorities’ attempts to demolish their tents, saying that the incident did not start from the defendants’ side.

Moreover the weapons, such as axes and iron bars, retrieved from the protest camp may not have belonged to the protesters as they were found after the activists dispersed.

The court ruled that the protests led by the nine defendants in 2008 were conducted peacefully, in a manner which was allowed in a democracy and under the Constitution.

Somkiat and Suriyasai thanked the court and the justice system for the ruling.