Alongside Thanathorn, two other prominent figures, profiled in the book, are seen as making up a dynamic and influential leadership trio.
Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, an activist legal scholar with a purported personal library of 2500 books, drove the party’s intellectual agenda. Pannika Wanich, a former journalist and TV presenter, was the party’s spokesperson, a gifted public speaker who garnered attention following her exclusion from parliament with a “no confidence” speech described as a “spectacular monologue of denunciation against the Prayuth government”.
The trio had significant public cut-through, and their opponents seemed to agree, with all three at various stages accused of being anti-monarchist (a serious charge, given Thailand’s lese-majesty law) and eventually banned from politics until 2030. McCargo and Anyarat note that the party faced at least 19 legal cases during its short existence.
What was behind Future Forward’s success? The party’s policies included rewriting the constitution, reforming the military (including reducing military expenditure and ending conscription) and decentralising political and budgetary power. However, party figures were doubtful that any one policy had attracted voters.
Instead, it was what Future Forward represented more broadly: a vote for change and strong opposition to military interventionism. As McCargo and Anyarat put it, the party had “captured the zeitgeist of a new generation” that was “utterly sick of being patronised”. Their message was amplified through social media channels that the party used more effectively than its opponents.
Future Forward also seemed to signal a break from Thailand’s fraught colour-coded politics that (broadly) pitted conservative yellow shirts, supported in Bangkok and parts of the south, against red shirts with a strong rural base in the populous north and northeast. For one supporter interviewed by the authors, Future Forward represented a “new politics with no colour”. Even its official colour, orange – a mix of red and yellow – seemed to signal a third way.
There is reason to temper expectations about Future Forward’s rise – not least as it is now officially banned. Although the party won votes around the country in 2019, it performed best in Bangkok, suggesting any parliamentary offspring would have work to do in winning constituencies in the north and northeast, where Thaksin-aligned parties were still overwhelmingly popular.
But the broader progressive movement, reflected in part in ongoing student-led protests, may have a lasting impact on the Thai political scene.
As McCargo and Anyarat note, by declaring Future Forward illegal, the government effectively quashed the political aspirations of a younger generation, leaving them with “no incentive to work within the system”. That younger generation is now responding on the streets.
David Hopkins