Nida Poll: Thanathorn best suited as Prime Minister of Thailand

I was talking about elections…

Most countries have a representative (indirect) democracy. It often happens that SAMEN political parties make decisions. The Netherlands has that tradition, and is praised for its consensus and polder culture. Belgium works similarly according to coalition models, so does Germany, France less so, the UK not at all. We're not talking about the US. (Whether Thailand is a democracy at all is debatable if you see how the election of March last took place, from the start of Prayuth dated May 2014. What many have already forgotten: in the beginning there was a military takeover, a democratically elected prime minister was dismissed, a curfew was imposed, plus a ban on association and expression.)
In a democracy, a political party DOES try to win an absolute majority, with allies if necessary, in order to leave opponents behind. Then you will benefit as many citizens as possible, in order to receive the final accounts via elections. If you succeeded, then you can go for a certain period, if you did not succeed, then it is up to your opponents.
Of course, Thanatorn wants the absolute majority. He can do that by entering into coalitions. In Thailand an absolute condition because of the large number of political currents and parties. In that respect, Thailand is very similar to the Netherlands.
But it seems that he has not been awarded it all. Which doesn't bother you, I have the impression. Scared for your ass, I guess.

Chris, which party does not want to get a majority vote from the people? Democracy does not come in one ready-made form, so this can be done in various ways: via a coalition (such as in the Netherlands or Belgium) or without a coalition (see, among others, the UK and the US, where usually 1 party has a majority in 1 or both chambers). Of course, Thanathorn would have been happy to form a government and in these elections it was clear that no party would (could) obtain an absolute majority.

Future Forward was therefore aware that in the best case scenario a coalition could be formed. See therefore the attempted talks with, among others, Phua Thai and the Democrats. Although they and we all knew that even then it would be a tough job to defeat the junta parties. Due to the not exactly democratic basis of this regime, the pro-democracy parties have therefore not succeeded in establishing a majority coalition. This is based, among other things, on the rather dubious design of the constitution and the equally dubious elections (take, among other things, the remarkable explanation/choice of the seat formula chosen by the Electoral Council appointed by the former junta). With the current set-up of Thailand's parliament, senate, Electoral Council and other bodies 'independently selected by the junta', it lacks a reasonable representation of the voice(s) of the people on a democratic level.

In any case, given Thanathorn's past (struggle for grassroots movements, etc.) and Future Forward's proposals (wanting to put an end to the disadvantaged position of minorities in Thailand), I do not have the impression that Future Forward / Thanathorn does not take minority voices into account. parliament would like to hold. Thanathorn and like-minded people fight for better representation of the people. In my book that's called collaboration. I'll keep my eyes open for attempted oppression by anyone, I haven't seen it yet at Future Forward. You hint at it, but without any concrete evidence showing that Future Forward does not stand for such democratic principles. Vigilance is good, but suggestive finger pointing needs better substantiation.