As Thailand is gearing up to go to the polls in a tightly contested national election, it seems the ongoing controversy surrounding the border dispute with Cambodia is still fresh in the minds of political leaders. The border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, which last month led to deadly clashes in May last year, recorded some of the worst confrontations between the two in a decade.
The conflict has, for the time being at least, receded from active hostilities, but it remains a powerful political tool—one which Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and his conservative Bhumjaithai Party are exploiting to fire up nationalist sentiment and position themselves as defenders of Thailand’s sovereignty.
How the Conflict Reshaped Thailand’s Political Landscape
The role of the border clashes in recent political events in Thailand. The border clashes had a major role to play in the recent political events in Thailand. The clashes contributed to the fall of the Paetongtarn Shinawatra government, and that paved the way for Anutin to take power in September. It’s been said that he has carefully created the image of a tough leader and supporter of the military who is willing to fight.
“Anutin’s party is positioning itself as the party that’s really willing to take the initiative on the border conflict,”
said Napon Jatusripitak of Singapore’s ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
“It’s taken the strongest and most hawkish stance.”
Nationalism as an Electoral Strategy
Patriotic rhetoric remains a major element of Anutin’s campaign, especially after fresh fighting in July and December boosted nationalist opinion. The conflict also hurt other political groups, especially Pheu Thai, a populist party led by Thaksin Shinawatra.
The case was further complicated when a leaked video call revealed Paetongtarn referring to the political strongman of Cambodia named Hun Sen as “uncle” before promising to “take care” of the border dispute. The communications sparked outrage in Thailand, with many accusing Paetongtarn of appeasing Cambodia at the expense of the Thai military.
Hun Sen, the former president, revealed that he was the one who made the call public, but under the guise of transparency. This call, nevertheless, ended in the dismissal of Paetongtarn by the Thai constitutional court and the overthrow of her government.
Military’s Resurgence in Thai Politics
The border conflict has also boosted the Thai military’s public standing, despite long-standing public frustration over military involvement in politics.
“The conflict came at a time of growing popular discontent with the military and the conservative elite,”
said Neil Loughlin of City St George’s, University of London. Yet the crisis restored the military’s image as a national protector.
Anutin capitalised on this shift, dissolving parliament shortly after renewed fighting in December and framing the election as a referendum on national security and territorial integrity.
Campaign Promises of Strength and Retaliation
Bhumjaithai’s campaign messaging has emphasised strength, deterrence, and sovereignty.
“Anutin has promised to protect the country and retaliate if conflict re-emerges,”
said Japhet Quitzon of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). His rhetoric signals a readiness to use force to defend Thailand’s borders.
‘War Against the Scam Army’ and Border Militarisation
During the conflict, the disputed territory was captured by Thai forces, and Cambodian casino complexes were also shelled by the Thais for allegedly being used by Cambodia’s military and for cyber fraud activities. The Thai military action was reportedly taken as part of a “war against the scam army,” involving online cyber fraud groups operating from Cambodia territory.
The number of casualties remains a matter of debate. The World Health Organization puts the figure of civilian deaths at 34, while sources indicate that the total number of casualties could have reached 149 by the time a ceasefire was signed in late December.
Impact on Opposition Parties and Policy Platforms
The conflict has reshaped the strategies of Thailand’s opposition parties. Pheu Thai continues to struggle with the fallout from the leaked call, while the reformist People’s Party has softened its long-standing criticism of the military.
Previously, the party pledged to abolish conscription and cut defence spending. However, the surge in military popularity has made such positions politically risky.
“The military’s popularity has reached heights not seen since the 2014 coup,”
Napon said. The party has since shifted its criticism to individual generals and refocused on economic issues.
Economic Concerns and the New Electoral Battleground
With Thailand’s economy projected to grow just 1.8 percent this year, economic recovery has re-emerged as a key campaign issue. Analysts say the People’s Party is regaining momentum by prioritising economic reform over military restructuring.
“This election will be very different from the previous one,”
Napon said.
“There’s no military in the picture—it’s a battle between old and new political forces.”
Can Hawkish Nationalism Deliver Electoral Victory?
As voting unfolds, Anutin’s strategy of leveraging nationalism and military strength faces a critical test. While the border conflict has bolstered his party’s credentials among conservative voters, economic concerns and reformist sentiment could still reshape the political outcome.
The election is set to determine whether Thailand’s electorate prioritises security and nationalism—or economic reform and political change—in a country still navigating the legacy of military influence and political instability.
