In elections, every party tries to adopt policies it hopes will stand out from the rest, and for the March 24 polls, the Democrat Party may have carved out the niche it was looking for.
Korn: Targeting Bangkok
But it may be too soon to say if the Democrats' will be rewarded with sackfuls of votes, according to one public relations analyst.
Commentators agree parties contesting the upcoming polls are largely grouped as either "pro-democracy" or "pro-dictatorship". And then there are the Democrats -- in the third camp and belonging to neither.
The main players in the next election are likened to three kingdoms using every trick to get ahead, said the analyst.
She said the pro-dictatorship label was created by pro-democracy parties to blacken their election rivals and fight the Palang Pracharath Party, which has nominated Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha to return as premier.
The PR specialist warned that political labelling can be extremely insidious, explaining that it is a bitter reminder of a few decades ago when parties vying for House seats were divided into the so-called "angelic" and "satanic" camps.
The analyst said the descriptions naturally led to unsavoury comparisons and drove a wedge between supporters of the two camps of parties. The result was deep-rooted animosity that left scars well after the elections.
This decades-old trick has been resurrected with potentially grim consequences. This is because the "pro-democracy" versus "pro-dictatorship" labels threaten to revive the intense colour-coded political and social conflicts that brought the country to its knees more than five years ago.
The analyst said certain parties in the March 24 race stand accused of being "merchants of conflict", bent on maintaining polarisation and divisions so they can retain control over voters on their side of the colour-coded fence.
Some Democrat candidates say people should step back from this conflict, which has held the country back for many years and move on. The Democrats have dismissed accusations by opponents that they are part of the problem. Some former and present party members co-founded the People's Democrat Reform Committee to protest against the Pheu Thai Party-led government, a move which opponents charge was the catalyst for the country's political deadlock and subsequently prompted the May 2014 coup.
Some Democrat supporters maintain it was the Pheu Thai-led administration's abuses of power and its backing of the blanket amnesty in 2013 that caused the political impasse.
The public relations analyst said the Democrats have refrained from being "labelled" and got on with promoting their poll manifesto. They have so far managed to avoid the campaign dramas plaguing other major parties.
However, the analyst said it was anybody's guess how the Democrats' policy-centred plan will pan out. She noted many campaign duels are fought on the internet and social media where many people are more keen on exchanging barbs than peering through the substance of party policies.
Deputy party leader Korn Chatikavanij said the Democrats target winning at least 20 House seats in Bangkok, where the party has fared consistently well in past elections, by keeping their support base and wooing first-time voters,
The chairman of the party's policy committee, also voiced confidence the party will turn the capital, where a total of 30 seats are up for grabs, into a stronghold.
Apirat: Falls into Sudarat trap
Apirat 'loses' political debate
It is not unusual for "pro-democracy" parties to zero in on military spending and vow to slash defence budgets in their election campaigns, given the strong anti-regime sentiment among their supporters.
They have been in the regime's grip for almost five years and are now threatened by the prospect of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, returning to power with the backing of the Palang Pracharath Party.
The former ruling Pheu Thai Party is among those that have promised to trim military spending if it forms the next government.
Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan, one of Pheu Thai's three prime ministerial candidates, wants a 10% cut in the defence budget, or about 20 billion baht. She has proposed using the money saved to help 30,000 young entrepreneurs build their startups.
Her campaign pledge drew a quick rebuke from army commander Gen Apirat Kongsompong, who shot back at the Pheu Thai heavyweight. He suggested she tune in to a song called Nak Phandin (Burden on the Land). He went as far as ordering the song to be played over military airwaves, but rescinded the order soon after.
The right-wing, anti-communist Thai song, which also loosely translates as "Worthless" or "Useless Weight on the Land", was composed in 1975 to promote patriotic feelings during the fight against the now-defunct Communist Party of Thailand. It is hardly played in public these days.
According to political observers, Gen Apirat's strong reaction to Pheu Thai's proposal was counterproductive and he had simply played into the hands of the Pheu Thai veteran by leaping into the political debate.
Most people agree that his response was an overreaction and uncalled for. The army chief must have realised that by the time he cancelled the song-playing order.
Gen Apirat's reaction could also give the anti-coup activists more ammunition with which to attack the army. Khunying Sudarat's response that, "as army chief, he should have been politically neutral", throws the supposed impartiality of the army into question, according to political observers.
However, Khunying Sudarat is also to blame for provoking the army chief, according to political sources. Her call for spending cuts was not justified, considering that the budget she thought should be earmarked for entrepreneurs could be obtained from other ministries directly responsible for the issue.
That Khunying Sudarat chose to zero in on military spending was a political ploy to cash in on anti-regime votes, the sources said.
As far as campaign rules are concerned, Pheu Thai's decision to pursue the spending issue, knowing it would stir anti-coup sentiment and pull in votes, is not against election law or regulations imposed by the Election Commission.
In fact, the rules require political parties to be clear on how they intend to fund their campaign promises in the wake of the financial fiasco caused by the Yingluck Shinawatra administration's rice-pledging scheme.
According to political observers, it is fine for Gen Apirat to disagree with the budget cut proposal and other controversial military-related issues, such as ending conscription and decreasing the number of generals, and he might consider some of these proposals as unfair attacks on the army.
But the army chief should know better than allow himself to get upset and be dragged into political debates, which will only intensify as the election draws nearer, the observers said.
Ruangkrai: Gunning for PPRP
TRC cries foul at poll body
The Election Commission (EC) has been accused of applying "double standards'' in its handling of two dissolution cases involving the Thai Raksa Chart Party (TRC) and the Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP).
Both are accused of offences which could lead to their dissolution.
TRC supporters said the EC was quick to forward the case against their party to the Constitutional Court while the commission seems to be dragging its feet over the PPRP.
On Feb 14, the court accepted the case against the TRC for nominating Princess Ubolratana as its prime ministerial candidate.
The organic law on parties allows the EC to propose dissolving a party for committing an act deemed hostile to the monarchy, which this move was interpreted as being.
His Majesty the King on Feb 8 reaffirmed that royal family members are above politics and cannot hold political positions.
Meanwhile, Seri Ruam Thai Party leader Sereepisuth Temeeyaves, and key TRC member Ruangkrai Leekitwattana petitioned the EC to disband the PPRP.
Pol Gen Sereepisuth accused the PPRP of undermining the constitutional monarchy by nominating Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha for the premiership. Gen Prayut led the May 22, 2014 coup and tore up the 2007 constitution and these should be "grounds enough to be deemed as acts of undermining democracy", Pol Gen Sereepisuth said.
Mr Ruangkrai claimed that PPRP leader Uttama Savanayana was neither a party member nor founder, which rendered him unqualified. Under the political party law, the leader and executives must be members of the same party.
EC secretary-general Jarungvith Phumma insists the EC has enough evidence in the TRC case.
But with the PPRP, there still was no clear evidence to back up the allegations, so the commission needs more time to gather evidence and investigate, Pol Col Jarungvith said.
PPRP chiefs have realised that the party is being targeted by other parties so is treading carefully to avoid falling into traps set by its political rivals, a party source said.
