I want to thank Daniel Unger and Stephan Haggard for their assistance and advice.Google Scholar

1. For works on Thai parties, see Tongdhamachart, Kramol, Towards a Political Party Theory in Thai Perspective (Singapore: Maruzen Asia, 1982); McCargo, Duncan, “Thailand's Political Parties: Real, Authentic, and Actual.” In Hewison, Kevin, ed., Political Change in Thailand: Democracy and Participation (London: Routledge, 1997); Limmannee, Anusorn, “Thailand.” In Sachsenroder, Wolfgang and Frings, Ulrike E., eds., Political Party Systems and Democratic Development in East and Southeast Asia (Burlington, Vt: Ashgate [Friedrich Naumann Foundation], 1998).Google Scholar

2. Albritton, Robert contends that the number of political parties had lessened across elections in the 1980s and 1990s. See Albritton, , “Political Parties and Elections in Thailand in an Era of Globalization: No Longer a Semi-Democracy,” paper presented at the meeting of the International Thai Studies Association, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 1996. Napisa Waitoolkiat calculates the effective number of political parties in Thai elections (from 1983 to 1992). She looks at whether Duverger's Law can be applied to Thailand and finds that there have been between 5.4 and 6.13 effective political parties in Thailand from 1983 to 1992 (in terms of seat shares), demonstrating the fragmented multiparty nature of Thailand's party system. See Waitoolkiat, “The Impact of the New 1997 Electoral Laws on Thai Politics,” paper presented at the Midwest Conference on Asian Affairs, Michigan State University, October, 1999. Hicken, Allen D. measures the effective number of parties (1979–2001), finding that there are vast differences between Thailand's effective number of parties at the national level and the effective number of parties at the provincial level. See Hicken, , “From Pitsanuloke to Parliament: Multiple Parties in Pre-1997 Thailand. In Nelson, Michael, ed., Thailand's New Politics: KPI Yearbook 2001 (Bangkok: King Prajadhipok's Institute and White Lotus Press, 2002).Google Scholar

3. This measure is useful when we want to count the number of parties/factions and they are not of equal size. The number of seat shares that each party (or faction) has is squared and then all are added together. This results in the Hirschman-Herfindahl (HH) concentration index. The HH provides a useful index from 0.0 to 1.0. This index can show different concentrations across cabinets. The greater the concentration, the higher the number. The inverse of the HH concentration index is the effective number of parties or factions. Taagepera, Rein and Shugart, Matthew, Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral System (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 77–81.Google Scholar

4. Croissant, Aurel, “Electoral Politics in Southeast and East Asia: A Comparative Perspective.” In Croissant, Aurel, ed., Electoral Politics in Southeast and East Asia (Singapore: Friedrich Ebert, 2002), p. 334.Google Scholar

5. For works on Thai factions, see the following: Ockey, James, “Change and Continuity in the Thai Political Party System,” Asian Survey 43, No. 4 (July–August 2003): 663–680; Chambers, Paul, “Mung Lek Nai Mung Yai: How Factions Matter in Contemporary Thai Politics,” Journal of Social Science 32, no. 2 (September-December 2001): 192–230; Khamnurakhasa, Nirujana, A Study of Factions Within the Thai Political Party System (master's thesis [in Thai], National Institute of Development Administration, 2000); Lertsukekasem, Boontham, Factionalism in the Social Action, Democrat, and Chart Thai Parties (Ph.D. diss. [in Thai], Chulalongkorn University, 1988); Ockey, James, “Political Parties, Factions, and Corruption in Thailand,” Modern Asian Studies 28, no. 2 (1994): 251–277; Sutranan, Piyasak, An Academic Analysis of Political Party Members Playing a Role in Intra—Party Factions (master's thesis [in Thai], Thammasat University, 1991).Google Scholar

6. See Chantornvong, Sombat, “Local Godfathers in Thai Politics.” In McVey, Ruth, ed., Money and Power in Provincial Thailand (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2000), p. 69.Google Scholar

7. Chambers, Paul, Factions, Parties, Coalition Change, and Cabinet Durability in Thailand: 1979–2001 (Ph.D. diss., Northern Illinois University, 2003).Google Scholar

8. Maor, Moshe, Parties, Conflicts, and Coalitions in Western Europe: Organizing Determinants of Coalitional Bargaining (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 1; Ockey, James, “Political Parties, Factions, and Corruption in Thailand,” Modern Asian Studies 28, 2 (1994): 251–277.Google Scholar

9. Riker, William, The Theory of Political Coalitions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962). James Ockey intriguingly contends that Thaksin Shinawatra, whose Thai Rak Thai won a majority in the 2001 election, refused to create a minimum winning coalition and instead formed a grand coalition, which diminished the chances of any one faction getting too big a piece of the pie and upsetting the coalition. Indeed, Thaksin has become the Thai Rak Thai factions' ultimate patron. See Ockey, , “Change and Continuity in the Thai Political Party System,” pp. 670–671.Google Scholar

10. Interview with a former Thai cabinet minister and prominent political figure, April 18, 2002.Google Scholar

11. Author's own calculations.Google Scholar

12. Rathamarit, Niyom, Military Governments in Thailand: Their Policies Toward Political Parties, 1977–83 (Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1984), pp. 147–152.Google Scholar

13. See Tsebelis, George, Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).Google Scholar

14. For some elaboration on veto-player theory, see Tsebelis, George, “Decision-making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarlism, Multicameralism, and Multipartyism,” British Journal of Political Science 25 (1995): 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Dodd, Lawrence C., Coalitions in Parliamentary Government (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), p. 38.Google Scholar

16. “Factional Divisions Within the Chart Thai Party” (in Thai), Tansabdahuajan, August 9–15, 1995, p. 23.Google Scholar

17. “Banharn Works Hard for Survival,” Bangkok Post, June 2, 1996, p. 1.Google Scholar

18. Meesane, Somchai, “Will the Law of Gravity Claim PM Its Victim?” Bangkok Post, July 12, 1996, available at http://www.bangkokpost.com.Google Scholar

19. Somchai Meesane and Susanpoolthong, Bangkok Post, September 22, 1996, p.1; Swasdi, Suvit, Bangkok Post, October 6, 1996, p.1; “Banharn Agrees to Resign,” Bangkok Post, September 22, 1996, available at http://www.bangkokpost.com. Chart Thai's factional games are explored further in “The Aspirations of Nine Chart Thai Groups” (in Thai), Prachachat, October 30, 1996, p. 33.Google Scholar

20. “Groups Within the New Aspiration Party,” The Nation, October 30, 1997, p.1A.Google Scholar

21. Nontharit, Wut, “Fighting for a Cabinet Seat.” Bangkok Post, July 5, 1997, available at http://www.bangkokpost.com.Google Scholar

22. Nontharit, , “Fighting for a Cabinet Seat.”Google Scholar

23. “Sanoh Dangles Promises to Appease Sukhavich Faction,” Bangkok Post, August 19, 1997, available at http://www.bangkokpost.com.Google Scholar

24. Thai constitution, 1997.Google Scholar

25. According to Ockey, “Change and Continuity,” the 1997 economic crisis played a major role in attracting impoverished factions and MPs into Thai Rak Thai before the 2001 general election. Yet economic crisis alone does not explain the continued sucking of factions into Thai Rak Thai today despite Thailand's improved economy. Nor does economic crisis explain the swarming of factions into parties occurring similarly in previous elections (e.g., 1986, March 1992, and 1996). Clearly the expectation of material gains as well as the anticipation of impending institutional constraints impelled Thai factions to look for the best deal in terms of a party host. These factors first and foremost prompted Thai factions and MPs to join Thai Rak Thai prior to 2001.Google Scholar

26. Lim, Sukanya, “Right-Hand Woman: Little Sister Makes Her Mark,” The Nation, July 8, 2001, p. 3A. Also see “Special Article: Considering Small and Big Nets in the Thai Rak Thai Party—Shades of Splits,” Matichon, July 9, 2001, pp. 10–11; Tanapornpan, Rangsan, Handbook of Thai Politics (in Thai) (Bangkok: Kobfai Publishing, 2001).Google Scholar

27. “Thaksin Sets ‘Harsh Rules’ for Truant MPs,” The Nation, November 17, 2001, available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com; “Show of Disunity in Thai Rak Thai Party,” The Nation, November 17, 2001, p. 4A.Google Scholar

28. It certainly did not help Somsak (or Thaksin) that the House Committee on Tourism was chaired by Songsak Tongsri, a Wang Nam Yen faction member. “Somsak Faces Censure,” The Nation, March 14, 2002, p. 1A. Also see “Wang Nam Yen Reveals that Minister Used Up B6 Billion” (in Thai), Thai Post, March 7, 2002, pp. 1,12.Google Scholar

29. Thaksin increased Somsak's duties, giving him control of Thailand's Board of Investment and Public Relations department. Moreover, Thaksin reportedly threatened Wang Nam Yen at a party meeting: “If any of you do not want to remain with the party, just tell me so that I don't have to file you in the next election.” This threat speaks to the 1997 constitutional requirement that MPs must remain members of their parties for at least ninety days prior to an election. Otherwise they forfeit their MP status. “Talking Point: The Twilight of the Wang Nam Yen Faction,” The Nation, March 16, 2002, available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com.Google Scholar

30. “Wang Nam Yen Threatens to Break with Government,” The Nation, November 15, 2002, available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com; “Cabinet Reshuffle—New Line-up Draws Flak from Within Ruling Party,” Bangkok Post, October 4, 2002, available at http://www.bangkokpost.com.Google Scholar

31. “90–Day Membership Rule: Charter Coup Brewing,” The Nation, November 26, 2002, available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com; “Constitutional Coup: Numbers Are Against the Plotters,” The Nation, November 27, 2002, available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com.Google Scholar

32. See “Thai Rak Thai Factions Tussle,” The Nation, October 27, 2002, available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com; “House Panels: Meeting to Allocate Positions,” The Nation, October 28, 2002, available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com; “House Committee Reform Strongly Opposed,” The Nation, November 26, 2002, available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com; “House Committees: Executive Branch Told to Back Off,” The Nation, November 30, 2002, available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com.Google Scholar

33. In August 2002, both Wang Nam Yen and Wang Bua Ban accused Thailand's Highways Department director-general of contract bid-rigging. The official was appointed by then Transport and Communications minister Wan Muhamad Noor Natha, a member of Thai Rak Thai's Wadah faction. Wang Nam Yen and Wang Bua Ban were particularly piqued at the bureaucrat because he apparently refused to promote these factions' supporters in a reshuffle of highway officials. Ultimately, Thaksin removed Wan Noor himself from his portfolio in the 2002 cabinet reshuffle. “Party Power Play: Snoh and Wan Noor in Battle,” The Nation, August 17, 2002, available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com.Google Scholar

On September 5, 2003, intraparty conflict openly erupted in the lower house's Budget Committee when members of the Wang Nam Yen faction alleged that Wang Bua Ban faction members were illegally channeling budget allocations to their own constituencies (and, more seriously, hoarding funds at the expense of members of Wang Nam Yen). However, the public airing of the allegations and threats to have 120 senators (minimum necessary) refer the matter to the Constitutional Court forced Wang Bua Ban members to agree to a more even distribution of budgetary resources. See “Budget Debate: Ruling Party Faction Promised More Funds,” The Nation, September 6, 2003, p. 1 A.Google Scholar

34. “Chart Thai to Meet Amid Defection Talk,” Bangkok Post, June 14, 2003, p. 3.Google Scholar

35. Election Commission of Thailand, “Thailand's 500 Members of Parliament,” available at http://www.ect.go.th.Google Scholar