Paetongtarn government at a political crossroads

Political approval ratings have come under renewed scrutiny following the release of a new survey by the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA Poll).

Conducted from July 4–7, 2025, the poll titled “Which direction should Thai politics take?” explores public opinion on the current political climate and the way forward amid mounting uncertainty.

When asked how Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra should respond to ongoing political challenges, 42.37% of respondents said she should resign to allow the selection of a new prime minister.

Another 39.92% suggested that she should dissolve the House of Representatives and call a general election.

In contrast, 15.04% believed she should remain in office and continue governing as usual, while a small minority of 1.37% expressed support for a military coup.

The poll also asked who the public would support as the next prime minister — choosing only from candidates eligible under the Constitution — in the event that Paetongtarn were forced to step down due to political turmoil.

The results showed that 32.82% would support Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, former prime minister and current candidate from the United Thai Nation Party.

Meanwhile, 27.94% said they would not support any of the listed constitutional candidates.

Another 11.53% backed Anutin Charnvirakul, leader of the Bhumjaithai Party, while 10.92% voiced support for Chaikasem Nitisiri, a candidate from Pheu Thai.

Paetongtarn at a crossroads 

Prime Minister Paetongtarn now finds herself at a political crossroads, as Thailand enters a period of “prime ministerial vacuum” following a Constitutional Court order temporarily suspending her from duty. The decision came after a petition from 36 senators calling for her removal over an alleged leaked audio clip of a conversation with Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen.

With Paetongtarn now stripped of her premiership duties and serving only as Culture Minister, the case is expected to take 45 to 60 days for the Constitutional Court to reach a verdict. In the meantime, political scenarios are converging around three possible outcomes.

The first scenario — if the court rules in her favour — would see Paetongtarn reinstated as prime minister, allowing the coalition government, with its fragile 260-seat majority, to continue. However, even this outcome would leave her facing mounting challenges, both in Parliament and across the broader political terrain.

The economic headwinds are equally intense. A recent Suan Dusit Poll, conducted by Suan Dusit University from July 8 - 11, revealed public expectations and growing anxiety, particularly around the economic agenda and international trade risks.

When asked which policy areas the new Cabinet should prioritise, respondents ranked the following as most urgent:

Reducing the cost of living and tackling the economic downturn – 65.41%

Supporting the agricultural sector – 52.73%

Combating corruption – 50.80%

Reforming and improving the education system – 49.12%

Modernising the bureaucracy – 48.03%

The poll also addressed public concern over former US President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on Thai imports. When asked how much they believed this would affect Thailand’s economy:

50.04% said it would have a major impact

34.76% expected a moderate impact

11% believed the effect would be minor

If the political path veers toward the second scenario — an unfavourable court ruling — and Paetongtarn is officially disqualified as prime minister, Thailand will once again face a political turning point. The process of selecting a new prime minister would be triggered, drawing on candidates listed by political parties by the Constitution.

The current list includes Chaikasem from the Pheu Thai Party, Anutin from Bhumjaithai, Gen Prayut and Pirapan Salirathavibhaga from the United Thai Nation Party, and Jurin Laksanawisit from the Democrat Party.

The return of Chaikasem to the spotlight — most notably his public appearances in recent weeks — signals that Pheu Thai is positioning him as a potential interim prime minister, should the Constitutional Court’s decision go against Paetongtarn. His presence has been interpreted as a strategic move to show readiness.

However, whether Chaikasem is truly the party’s final choice remains uncertain. One complication is his previous statements on reforming Section 112 of the Criminal Code (the lèse majesté law), which may trigger renewed legal and political backlash. Such controversy could open the door for a shift in political power yet again.

This raises the question of whether Pheu Thai would allow control of the prime ministership to pass to one of its coalition partners. If Chaikasem is deemed politically untenable, the appointment could swing toward the United Thai Nation Party — a possibility reinforced by the recent NIDA Poll showing Prayut gaining momentum in public support.

The third path forward involves the prime minister choosing to dissolve Parliament. Observers have noted this option could be exercised after the passage of the 2026 budget bill in September, which coincides with the annual civil service reshuffle and the anticipated Constitutional Court ruling.

Should the government opt for dissolution, it would continue in a caretaker capacity for 60 days until new elections could be held — likely in late 2025 or early 2026.

Clues pointing to this scenario have already emerged. At a special Cabinet meeting on July 3, ministers reportedly discussed the scope of authority for an acting prime minister, specifically concerning the power to dissolve Parliament. On the same day, a formal memo from the Office of the Prime Minister — signed by Dr Prommin Lertsuridej, the Prime Minister’s Secretary-General — delegated caretaker responsibilities to deputy prime ministers.

Crucially, the document confirmed that acting prime ministers possess full authority equivalent to that of a sitting PM, by the Constitution and the State Administration Act.

Taken together, these developments suggest that dissolution may be a serious option under consideration, particularly if Pheu Thai seeks to prevent a power shift away from its leadership.

As Thailand grapples with a political vacuum at the premiership level, the fragile balance of power within the governing coalition — already operating on a razor-thin majority — has turned every parliamentary vote into a critical point of leverage.

In this context, inter-party negotiations have intensified, with political factions seeking to maximise their influence. Daily bargaining has become the norm, particularly over unresolved political appointments, most notably the second deputy speaker of the House, a position still under contention.

One such opportunity for deal-making will come on July 22, when coalition parties are scheduled to meet over dinner — this time with MPs in attendance. It is expected that the gathering will go beyond ceremonial gestures and address pressing matters, including a push for tighter discipline among coalition MPs to ensure quorums, following repeated parliamentary no-shows.

The stakes have grown after three Bhumjaithai Party MPs voted against party lines during a key motion to withdraw the controversial “entertainment complex” agenda. Although some saw this move as a tactical attempt to draw opposition MPs into the government’s camp, coalition managers must now consider the risk of absentee MPs due to illness or leave, making every single vote count.

Meanwhile, the post of second deputy House speaker has sparked intra-coalition friction. Although Pheu Thai insists the post should remain within its ranks, citing both seniority and regional representation, there is no consensus yet. Sutin Klungsang, a Pheu Thai list MP from the party’s northeastern bloc, argued that the position should go to an Isaan MP, pointing to the region’s numerical strength within the party.

This view aligns with growing pressure from Pheu Thai’s northeastern MPs, who believe the seat should remain under their control. However, Sorawong Thienthong, Tourism and Sports Minister and Pheu Thai’s secretary-general, offered a different perspective, suggesting the post might rightfully belong to the United Thai Nation Party, the second-largest party in the coalition.

Other parties have also thrown names into the ring. The Kla Tham Party, a smaller coalition partner, has floated its candidate, further complicating negotiations.

The current dispute follows the resignation of Paradorn Prissananantakul, the former deputy speaker from Bhumjaithai, after the party pulled out of the coalition. Whoever fills the seat will wield considerable procedural power, including overseeing the screening of draft legislation and shaping the House agenda.

This makes control over the post especially critical for Pheu Thai, which is preparing to introduce a series of flagship bills. Holding this position would grant the party substantial influence over the legislative process, and potentially the broader direction of government policy.

That said, any final appointment will ultimately depend on House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha, who may revise the division of responsibilities among the deputy speakers in an attempt to restore equilibrium among coalition partners.

It’s worth noting that Pheu Thai already holds one key parliamentary leadership post, with Pichet Chuamuangphan currently serving as first deputy House speaker. This has raised further questions over whether the party will be willing — or forced — to share parliamentary influence and strike a more balanced power-sharing agreement within the ruling coalition.

Reading between the lines, both onstage and behind the curtain, it is clear that Pheu Thai is navigating a delicate and unpredictable political landscape. In recent weeks, the frequent public appearances of two former prime ministers — Thaksin Shinawatra and Srettha Thavisin — have drawn significant attention and political interpretation.

Their presence is widely interpreted as a calculated signal — a public display of reassurance amid political turbulence, and a measured response to the “three-way crossroads” now confronting the government’s future.

More subtly, these appearances may also serve to quell unrest, both inside and outside Parliament, reinforcing the narrative that Thai politics has not slipped into a power vacuum, despite the court-ordered suspension of Prime Minister Paetongtarn.

Inside Parliament, the premiership is temporarily vacant. Outside, however, the presence of two former leaders suggests that strategic guidance continues — and that power remains firmly anchored within Pheu Thai’s inner circle.

It is, in effect, a reminder that “the big boss” remains in control, and the levers of government will not be relinquished without a fight.