Interactions between Political Parties and Social Movements in Military Authoritarianism: Evidence from Thailand

Does the interaction between political parties and social movements emerge in authoritarian regimes? Under what conditions do party-movement interactions occur in authoritarian regimes? How do different types of authoritarian regimes impact the dynamics of interactions between political parties and social movements? These questions have largely remained unanswered and under-researched. While a substantial body of literature has explored interactions between political parties and social movements, most of these studies have primarily focused on democratic contexts, particularly Western cases. Surprisingly, we know very little about the interactions between political parties and social movements in authoritarianism, especially post-war military authoritarianism. After the third wave of democratisation, classic military authoritarianism has declined, but it has not vanished; instead, it has transformed into non-traditional military authoritarianism, where the military has adopted a format akin to hybrid regimes, introducing a veneer of democracy through incorporation with democratic actors. As post-war military authoritarianism has become more innovative and complex than the classic form, I argue that the extent to which the military influences and becomes involved in the regime results in four distinct configurations of military authoritarianism: junta-dominated, junta-influenced, junta-backed, and junta-shadowed regimes. Due to these variations, the interaction between political parties and social movements emerges as a political strategy, either as a regime-preserving or regime-challenging force, with the dynamics and patterns of interaction being shaped by the four types of regimes. To support my theory, I draw on evidence from Thailand, where the variations in military authoritarian regimes between 2005 and 2022 provide ideal diagnostic contexts. This article sheds light on the causal effects of different types of military authoritarian regimes on the interaction between political parties and social movements by drawing on twenty original interviews conducted with relevant political actors, including government and opposition politicians, movement leaders, as well as political activists and asylees in 2021. Building on these findings, I illustrate that a higher degree of military involvement in politics results in a looser form of party-movement interaction. Party-movement interactions emerge as regime-preserving forces when the military is not the head of the government; whereas, patterns of party-movement interactions variously emerge as regime-challenging forces, occurring across all types of military authoritarian regimes except junta-dominated regime.