The March election had, among other things, led to a political polarization in Thailand, which culminated in the May crisis and the resignation of General Suchinda. Attempts by various political leaders to form a new government to replace Suchinda failed. So the House was dissolved and a new election held to break the political deadlock. During the March election, political parties were divided into two distinctive groups: the pro-military, the “satans”; and the pro-democracy, the “angels”. Indeed, the political polarization could be traced back to the time when the 1991 Constitution was adopted. There were two opposing camps then: one belonged to the pro-democracy parties which had campaigned for an elected prime minister, and the other comprised pro-military parties which were prepared to accept a non-elected military officer as prime minister.

It is also important to note here that even before the March election, the four pro-military parties — Samakkhi Tham, Chart Thai, Social Action, and Prachakorn Thai — had agreed to form a coalition if they together won a majority. They had also agreed to support a “middle person” or a non-elected person to become prime minister, which meant General Suchinda. They had estimated that they could easily win at least 200 seats, based on the electability track records of their candidates. (However, the defeat of Prachakorn Thai — it won only 7 seats nation-wide as opposed to 31 in the previous election of 1988 — had upset their hopes of having a comfortable working majority. As a result, the total number of seats for the pro-military alliance came up to 191. A fifth party — Rassadorn [Citizens] — was brought in, increasing the total to 195 seats [see Appendix Table 3].)

By the same token, as early as when the 1991 Constitution included a clause which allowed a non-elected person to assume the premiership, the four anti-military parties — the Democrat, New Aspiration, Palang Dharma, and Solidarity — and other activist groups launched a campaign against the clause.