Thailand’s People’s Party split as former MP alleges ‘grand compromise’ with establishment

BANGKOK — A former lawmaker from the People’s Party (PP) has leveled accusations of mismanagement and internal irregularities against the organization, citing a deep ideological rift and her recent disqualification as a candidate.

Tisana Choonhavan, 34, a member of the influential Choonhavan political dynasty, alleged the party made a "big compromise" by deciding to support Anutin Charnvirakul for prime minister in late 2025. Choonhavan said she opposed the move, which she claims has stifled internal dissent.

The dispute escalated with Choonhavan’s claim that she was tricked into signing a blank document to approve a replacement candidate for her seat. She further accused the PP of orchestrating a coordinated online attack against her through a company called Spectre C.

Choonhavan is a vocal advocate for military reform, migrant labor rights, and the drafting of a new constitution by the public. She currently serves as a guest lecturer in international law and human rights at George Mason University in the United States.

The public fallout between Tisana Choonhavan and the People’s Party (PP) is far more than an isolated personnel dispute; it is a clinical symptom of the deep fractures currently destabilizing Thailand’s reformist movement. The controversy underscores a classic existential dilemma for progressive factions: whether to embrace realpolitik by courting the conservative establishment to secure power, or to maintain ideological purity at the cost of remaining in opposition.

The PP’s strategic pivot to support Anutin Charnvirakul, a veteran figure of the traditional power structure, represents a calculated—if risky—gamble on pragmatism. While such maneuvers are designed to facilitate a path into government, they risk incinerating the party’s grassroots credibility. For idealists like Choonhavan and the broader electorate that voted for systemic overhaul, this shift is viewed less as a strategy and more as a betrayal of the reformist mandate.

Furthermore, the allegations involving the use of a media consultancy, Spectre C, to orchestrate digital smear campaigns against internal critics, signal an evolution in Thai political warfare. This move toward "digital liquidation" of dissent reflects a broader global trend where parties weaponize online influence to maintain internal discipline. It suggests a hardening of party structures that contradicts the transparent, democratic values the PP claims to champion.

Ultimately, Choonhavan’s pedigree as a member of a premier political dynasty, coupled with her international education, provides her with an influential platform that the party cannot easily dismiss. Her dissent threatens to trigger a crisis of confidence that could strip the People’s Party of its most valuable asset: its identity as the sole authentic alternative to Thailand’s status quo. If the party continues to prioritize short-term power over its foundational principles, it faces the looming threat of institutional irrelevance among the very voters who fueled its rise.