Banned almost–prime minister of Thailand: ‘Politics must be moral and realistic’

Published on 17 November 2025

Pita Limjaroenrat (45) was set to become Thailand’s next prime minister, but in 2024 the Thai Constitutional Court dissolved his progressive Move Forward Party and banned him from politics. He now reflects publicly on the policy values that brought the party to prominence.

You described your political party’s platform and electoral strategy as a mix of values and pragmatism. What does that mean?

Values and pragmatism must go together. In Thailand’s 2023 election, my party won on a platform that was unapologetically value-driven: democracy, fairness, equality before the law, and an economy that works for ordinary people. But values alone cannot change a country. We need a governing strategy that understands constraints, institutions, state capacity, and sequencing to translate values into workable policies. 
 
Political movement must keep its moral compass steady while adjusting its methods to the terrain. It means insisting on civilian control of the military but understanding that reforms need to be phased and negotiated. It means supporting marriage equality while also planning the bureaucratic plumbing that makes the law operational. It means wanting to decentralize power but also being realistic about administrative bottlenecks and political resistance. 
 
In Southeast Asia especially, politics demands this dual mindset. If we are only pragmatic, we become cynical. If we are only value-driven, we become symbolic. A sustainable movement lives in the space between the two.

You are a politician with a background in business. How do you see the relation between the public values that should guide politics and policy-making, and the private values that have orient business practices? Are these two types of values categorically distinct or should they sometimes mix?

At first glance, the values in business and politics appear to belong to different worlds. Business often prioritizes efficiency, competition, and returns. Politics must prioritize equity, rights, and public welfare. But the truth is that modern societies need both sets of values, and the line is not as rigid as people assume. 
 
My business background taught me the discipline of execution: designing incentives, managing complexity, and being accountable. These are private-sector strengths, but they are extremely relevant for public-sector reform. If anything, the state usually suffers not from a lack of ideals, but from a gap between ideals and delivery. Business methods can help narrow that gap. 
At the same time, politics should never simply import the logic of the market. Public values, like dignity, justice, participation, and non-discrimination, must guide the use of managerial tools. The risk is when business efficiency is used to justify cutting corners on rights or ignoring vulnerable communities. 
 
So I see the relationship not as distinct categories but as overlapping circles. They mix only under one condition: public values must remain the north star. Private-sector logic can support public purpose, but it can never override it.

On November 10, 2025 Pita Limjaroenrat presented a very stimulating guest lecture to the MPA students taking the Public Policy and Values core course at the Institute of Public Administration of Leiden University. Pita led the Move Forward Party to become the biggest political party in the 2023 Thai parliamentary elections, with a progressive values platform promising a redrafting of the constitution, voluntary conscription, and same-sex marriage. He is now touring the world and trying to help the next generation of leaders. 

How important is an academic education and familiarity with public policy analysis and value theory to succeed in politics and policy-making? What, if anything, has the university taught you that you think is essential to your current professional career?

Academic training is not a precondition for becoming a politician, but it makes politics more stable, thoughtful, and honest. My time at Harvard and other institutions has taught me three essential lessons: 

1. Conceptual clarity. When I am debating issues like decentralization, inequality, or institutional reform, I need frameworks that help me structure the problem instead of reacting emotionally. 

2. Intellectual humility. Academic spaces force me to confront ideas that challenge my assumptions. This humility is crucial in politics, where certainty is often rewarded but rarely justified. 

3. A commitment to public reason. Universities teach that arguments must appeal to shared principles, not just identity or emotion. In polarized societies, this is a survival skill. 

In short, academic exposure doesn’t replace political instinct, but it improves the quality of judgment. It helps me act with both ambition and responsibility. 

People disagree about what values mean or what values require in practice. Moreover, public values sometimes clash with each other – for instance, liberty with security or honor with honesty. Do you have any special practical techniques or tips for dealing with such value disagreements and value conflicts?

In politics, value conflicts are not a bug. They are the system. A pluralistic society will always have competing goods. The task is not to eliminate disagreement but to channel it constructively. I rely on three practical techniques. 

1. Naming the conflict. Many political debates become toxic because people argue without recognizing the underlying value trade-off. Once we name the conflict, we already reduce misunderstanding, moving from emotion to analysis. 

2. Designing for the second-best. In real life, we rarely achieve perfect justice or perfect efficiency. The question becomes: what compromise preserves the core of each value?  

3. Participatory decision-making. Value disagreements soften when people feel respected and included. Town halls, citizen assemblies, and public consultations often surface insights that elites overlook. Participation turns abstract values into lived experiences. 

Ultimately, value conflicts cannot be solved permanently, but they can be managed with honesty, transparency, and empathy.

What would be your professional advice to students who want to develop a career in politics or policy-making?

Speaking from my own experience, I recommend building three types of capital. 

1. Moral capital. Know what you stand for and what you will not compromise on. Politics without a moral anchor is dangerous. 

2. Competence capital. Learn how systems work: budgets, institutions, policy instruments, and political incentives. Values inspire movements, but competence sustains them. 

3. Relational capital. Cultivate networks outside your bubble: civil servants, activists, academics, business leaders. Politics is a team sport with shifting coalitions. 

Don’t wait for perfect conditions. Start small—join campaigns, volunteer, research, organize. Politics rewards those who show up consistently over time. Finally, remember that politics is ultimately about service. If you treat it as a career ladder, you will burn out. If you treat it as a long-term commitment to improving people’s lives, you will find meaning even in difficult moments.