Thanathorn likens Thailand's experience to a 'Lost Two Decades,' condemning a vicious cycle of misguided problem-solving. He asserts democracy is the only solution and calls on all parties to jointly craft rules to end the political time bomb threatening the nation.
At 3:30 p.m. on 5 Oct 2026 GMT+7, at Siam Event House, Prachachuen 46, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, chairman of the Progressive Movement, participated in a panel discussion at the Thai Post's 30th anniversary event titled 'Looking Back, Looking Forward: Shaping Thailand's Future.' He reviewed Thailand's political and economic situation over the past 30 years, dividing it into two key periods. The first decade saw tangible political reforms and progress in areas such as the establishment of the public broadcaster Thai PBS and decentralization of power to local administrative organizations for infrastructure development.
Thanathorn continued, stating the pivotal turning point came after the 2006 coup, which marked the beginning of the 'Lost Two Decades.' Over the past 20 years, Thailand has wasted time seeking political solutions trapped in a cycle, severely impacting the country's economic and social structures in every dimension.
Thanathorn further stated that economically, over the 20-year period from 2006 to 2025, Thailand's economy grew at an average annual rate of only 2.6%, below the global average of 3.3%. Compared to ASEAN countries, Thailand lagged significantly: Vietnam grew at 6% annually, Indonesia and the Philippines at 4.9%, and Malaysia and Singapore at 4.3%. This sluggish growth has hindered the creation of sufficient new jobs and careers.
He added that structural inequality worsened, with economic activity concentrated solely in Bangkok and its metropolitan area, while the northern, northeastern, and southern regions' share of GDP steadily declined. In education, Thai students' PISA test scores have continuously fallen compared to 2006.
Thanathorn noted that over the past 20 years, Thailand has had ten prime ministers, each averaging only two years in office; three constitutions; four major protest waves; five prime ministers ousted; nine main political parties dissolved; two elections annulled; and two coups. This political instability meant no government had adequate time or focus to establish long-term policies like developing new industries, supply chains, or national capabilities requiring at least a decade, as most governments were preoccupied with political survival.
Thanathorn added that the use of undemocratic methods or mechanisms to resolve political problems over the past two decades has been proven ineffective, instead dragging Thai society backward. Therefore, if Thailand is to progress, firmly upholding and developing democracy is the only path to create continuity and genuine stability for the country.
He summarized the political crisis over the past 30 years, emphasizing that the country's solution is not to resolve problems through undemocratic means but to reintegrate true democracy into social structures. He stressed that the way forward, including how to coexist amid disagreements when peaceful democratic mechanisms fail, is a critical challenge for all. Frequent calls for peaceful conflict resolution and building a new society require broad debate involving political parties and civil society to seek solutions together.
Thanathorn observed that Thailand currently shares a common problem: a lack of mutually accepted rules determining how people coexist. Despite three constitutions, including the current 2017 Constitution, he said it has been recognized from the start as a time bomb, which has now exploded as seen today. Learning from past experiences, the challenge is to make this time different by jointly establishing rules and a constitution.
"Of course, there are bad politicians. I have been in politics for nine years and can confidently say there are good politicians, but also corrupt, selfish ones who turn national assets into personal property. This is undeniably true. However, concluding that politicians themselves are the country's problem leads to repeating the same ineffective solutions," Thanathorn said. .
He also highlighted misconceptions about Thailand's political problems, which lead to flawed conclusions and old remedies—namely, efforts to strip power from elected politicians and transfer it to independent agencies lacking oversight, alongside the unchecked expansion of the bureaucracy. The growth of state agencies with obsolete missions but no closures has massively increased the national budget, while oversight mechanisms remain powerless to hold these organizations accountable.
Thanathorn stated that moving Thailand forward requires acknowledging that society's key players include not only politicians but also the military, traditional networks, and bureaucracy. All must openly discuss their needs and necessities at negotiation tables to jointly establish nationally accepted rules, halt the cycle of conflict, and enable Thailand to progress better than in the past 20 years.
He added that beyond temporary fixes and piecemeal constitutional amendments, there must be consensus on a constitution or agreement enabling peaceful coexistence. Moreover, the state's role in these volatile times should be enhanced to drive the economy forward. Economic growth depends on increasing workforce skills and technology; thus, technology use is essential for growth.
"Thailand's future can advance further only if the Thai state becomes more efficient. State reform is crucial. Thailand cannot progress significantly in the next 10 years without substantial state stability," Thanathorn said. .
He declared readiness to return in 2030 if necessary.
In addition, Thanathorn responded to a question about whether, after his ban ends in 2030, he might return to parliament and possibly become a prime ministerial candidate, and if there was a chance he would join forces with the Democrat Party. He said time has flown and that in about three years, he does not intend to return unless the country moves in the right direction. The Progressive Movement has many capable leaders who can lead with strong principles, so his return is not necessary. However, if the party faces difficulties, such as leadership dissolution or lack of suitable leaders, he would be willing to come back and accept responsibility. Regarding potential alliances for the next election, it is too early to discuss. From what he has heard, cooperation between the Progressive Movement and the Democrat Party in the opposition whip has been effective and harmonious.