In 1932, Thailand chose to follow the democratic path, and while there have been many detours and obstructions along the way, the crafting of a Thai democracy has remained the ultimate goal. Over the years, the narrowing and constricting of Thai democracy seems to have frustrated Thai observers, while the broadening of democracy has often been far more subtle. The year 1996 saw an expansion of both the strengths and weaknesses of Thai democracy. This expansion had an impact on politics, on the economy, on foreign relations, on civil-military relations, and on the shape of the political system itself. During the year, democracy both crafted, and in turn was crafted by all of these spheres. Although much attention was paid to weaknesses of Thai democracy in 1996 in the local press, many strengths developed as well. Furthermore, a clearer understanding of weaknesses such as vote-buying, corruption, and political interference in the economy emerged, accompanied by a determination to alleviate them through democratic methods.

Politics under Banharn

The government of Banharn Silapa-Archa, elected in July of 1995, struggled with problems of legitimacy and factionalism throughout 1996, resulting in a dissolution of the Parliament in September. These twin problems of factionalism and legitimacy were exacerbated by the failure of Banharn's Chart Thai party to gain any support in Bangkok, where the middle class, through its wealth and through the media, plays a role disproportionate to its size. Indeed, the differences between politics in Bangkok and the provinces are key to understanding the fall of the Banharn government.

Banharn and his party came to power from a provincial base. The Chart Thai party did not even contest seats in Bangkok, where it has no real constituency. Chart Thai won ninety-two seats, all in the provinces. From the beginning, Banharn and most of his party were perceived by the Bangkok middle class to be uneducated, corrupt, and self-serving.