Bangkok: Political scientists point out that the results of the 2016 Bangkok general election reflect a new era of politics, where citizens judge based on performance rather than rhetoric. Associate Professor Dr. Chetha Sapyaen, a political scientist from Navamintrathirat Open University, analyzed the results of the Bangkok gubernatorial and Bangkok Metropolitan Council (BMA) elections on June 28, 2026, stating that it served as an important lesson for all political parties. The election results did not merely reflect who won or lost, but rather a shift in the public's mindset in making political decisions, placing greater importance on "performance" rather than "words."
According to Thai News Agency, Associate Professor Dr. Chetha stated that Mr. Chatchart Sittipunt's victory was not due to political trends or rhetoric, but rather the result of accumulated achievements over four years. These included visiting constituencies to listen to problems, solving urban issues, and implementing tangible administrative practices that the public could experience. These achievements became the primary means of communication for the candidate, eliminating the need for political retaliation or conflict-building to gain popularity.
Regarding the results of the Bangkok Metropolitan Council (BMA) elections, this political scientist believes that while the public continues to trust candidates from the People's Party in many areas, the results also reflect that future politics cannot rely solely on criticizing opponents or continuously creating conflict. Instead, it must present tangible approaches to work, policies, and achievements.
"The public is demanding that all political parties answer the question of what they will do to improve the city if elected, rather than competing by accusing or attacking their opponents," Asst. Prof. Dr. Chetha said.
Furthermore, it was noted that political rhetoric raised as key issues in the election campaign, such as the accusation of the "Akong regime," did not influence the decisions of voters in Bangkok as much as many had anticipated. This was because a large number of people chose to consider the candidate's performance and administrative capabilities rather than choosing sides in a war of rhetoric.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Chetha also stated that candidates linked to such allegations won overwhelmingly, practically without needing to respond, while political parties that used these issues as a core part of their campaigns received only a small number of votes. This raises a crucial question of how much influence this type of rhetoric still has on Thai politics when the public now uses performance as the criterion for making decisions.
Regarding the Democrat Party, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Chetha believes that the election results reflect an unresolved issue: relying solely on past voter bases and reputation is no longer sufficient. All candidates need to prove themselves through their achievements, close ties with the people, and genuine representation of their respective constituencies.
A political scientist from Navamintrathirat University concluded that the results of this Bangkok election can be summarized as follows: "Bangkokians aren't rejecting politics, but they're rejecting politics based solely on rhetoric," and are turning to a political system that proves results through action. When the public sees tangible achievements, political rhetoric will have less influence, and governance that builds trust will carry more weight than political attacks. This could be considered a significant turning point in Thai politics, moving towards an era where citizens judge politicians based on performance rather than rhetoric.