The May 11 municipal elections across Thailand, although extensive in scope, offered little to celebrate in terms of democratic progress. Rather than signalling a political shift or new energy in local governance, the results underscored a deeply familiar pattern: vote buying remains the dominant strategy in Thai politics.
This is not to suggest that the losing candidates were paragons of clean politics -- many also engaged in vote buying but failed due to weaker execution. Some offered too little, others mismanaged their ground operations, or depended on vote canvassers who were unpopular or distrusted by local communities.
Behind this electoral choreography lies a political system where success depends less on winning the hearts and minds of voters and more on securing the loyalty of local vote canvassers. These individual candidates are carefully recruited well in advance of the election, often chosen for their reputation, leadership image, or personal networks. National and local politicians alike support and nurture these canvassers, who function as power brokers between the electorate and the candidate. In reality, the core political competition is about capturing the allegiance of these intermediaries -- voters are secondary players in a system designed to maintain control, not encourage choice.
This reliance on canvassers is also a symptom of a larger structural problem: the unresponsiveness of the Thai bureaucracy to the plights of citizens. Many citizens feel that their voices do not reach government agencies through institutional channels. Instead, they must appeal through an informal one -- vote canvasser, who can advocate on their behalf. In this sense, canvassers are not only political brokers but also community gatekeepers. Voters do not demand good policies or leadership; they require access, and canvassers deliver it. Politicians, in turn, are expected to use their power to "manage" the bureaucracy, reinforcing a pattern where representation becomes personal rather than institutional.
Yet even in this deeply entrenched system, there are signs of hope. Fourteen mayoral candidates from the People's Party (PP) -- a party perceived of ethical campaigning -- won their races without relying on vote buying. Among them were five successful candidates for town mayor and nine for subdistrict municipalities. Their victories are not just statistical anomalies; they represent the potential for a different kind of politics, rooted in public trust rather than transactional loyalty.
For many of the PP candidates who did not win, however, the experience was sobering. Several were misled by pre-election polls that indicated a strong preference. Some blamed themselves for being politically naive or inexperienced, while others expressed deep frustration with the role of election authorities. A few were particularly disheartened by the inaction of the Election Commission and police, who turned a blind eye to blatant violations. Their disappointment is understandable, especially when perceived clean candidates are left to compete on an uneven playing field. It is hoped their determination remains unwavering.
Thailand's political development hinges on breaking free from this cycle. Change cannot be expected from the top alone, nor should it rely entirely on individual candidates with moral convictions. What is needed is a broad-based effort to transform the very foundations of electoral competition. That begins with acknowledging that vote buying is not merely a cultural habit -- it is a rational strategy that thrives in environments with weak institutional structures. To confront it effectively, we must reform the rules, strengthen enforcement, and change the incentives.
Other countries have done just that. South Korea, for instance, once struggled with rampant vote buying, especially at the local level. Through a genuine and meaningful electoral reform, civic engagement, and public awareness campaigns, it shifted towards more policy-focused elections. Today, Korean local governments are expected to perform and are held accountable by both the media and citizens. Japan, too, transitioned from a postwar system steeped in clientelism to one that values merit-based public service and transparent party structures. In both countries, the transformation was not instantaneous -- it was driven by citizen pressure, legal changes, and the maturation of democratic institutions.
Western democracies, such as Sweden and Canada, offer further contrasts. In these systems, vote buying is not only illegal but socially and culturally unthinkable. Transparent campaign financing, independent electoral commissions, strong and responsive bureaucracies, and an informed electorate create an environment where ideas matter more than handouts. Citizens expect services not as favours, but as rights. Politicians win by demonstrating competence and accountability, not by bribery of voters.
Thailand can take inspiration from these experiences. Electoral laws must be tightened and enforced with consistency. Campaign financing must be scrutinised, and a mechanism for reporting violations must be accessible and protected. At the same time, civic education must be enhanced. Voters must be encouraged to view elections not as transactional acts but as opportunities to choose leaders who will uphold the public interest.
Equally important is the need to make the public sector more efficient and responsive to needs of citizens. If citizens believe that the only way to get public services is via elected politicians and political networks, vote canvassing will never go away. Therefore, strengthening bureaucratic accountability, transparency, and service delivery is therefore not just an administrative goal -- it is a political imperative.
The recent election should not be dismissed as a disappointment. It is a reflection -- a mirror showing us where our democratic practices stand. While the overall picture is sobering, it also reveals openings for progress. The success of a few clean candidates demonstrates that ethical politics is possible, even in challenging circumstances. Their win must be amplified, studied, and supported -- not individual triumphs, but as signs of what could be.
We must not let cynicism win. This moment calls for reflection, yes, but also mobilisation. Reform does not emerge from a single campaign cycle; it results from sustained efforts spanning multiple elections, institutions, and civil society.
The future of Thai democracy depends on our willingness to keep pushing forward, even when the system seems designed to hold us back.
The May 11 election shows us where we stand. What truly matters now is the direction we choose, and the courage we summon to move forward.