Democracy on the dock

T

hailand’s people had spoken, but the country’s authorities were in no mood to listen. In fact, the latter even placed the power of changing Thailand’s politics and government into the hands of the Constitutional Court, instead of just heeding the results of the general election last year.

On Aug. 7, the court will rule on whether to dissolve the main opposition Move Forward Party (MFP), which had the highest number of the popular votes in the 2023 polls, and ban the party’s executive board members from politics for up to 10 years. In another ruling by the same court to be made on Aug. 14, Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin faces possible removal from power by the court for having appointed to the Cabinet someone who was once charged with attempting to bribe a court official.

Last year, many observers had predicted Pheu Thai Party – Prime Minister Srettha’s party – to emerge as the winner in the legislative polls. Instead, the top post went to the political upstart, Move Forward Party (MFP), regarded by many as progressive in its views. Buoyed by the support of the country’s youth, MFP bagged 151 seats, compared to Pheu Thai’s 141, which came in second; in the capital Bangkok, MFP even took 31 out of 32 seats. 

Like MFP, Pheu Thai ran as an opposition party in the May 2023 polls. But MFP is the only political party that has pledged to amend the anachronistic and controversial lèse–majesté law, under which defaming the monarchy results in the maximum imprisonment term of 15 years. 

The law effectively makes critical discussion about the role of the Thai monarchy a most risky, if not illegal, act. This is despite the fact that Thailand is supposedly a constitutional, not an absolute, monarchy; the citizens’ abilities to criticize the monarchy should be legal, no different from countries like the United Kingdom and Japan.

The law has ensured self-censorship among the Thai mass media – even among foreign correspondents based in Thailand who are subject to the law. Many Thai netizens have also been charged over the years. One of the most prominent leaders of the monarchy-reform movement, Arnon Nampa, is currently serving a 14-year prison sentence for multiple convictions – and faces more lèse-majesté charges. 

In Thailand, conservative royalists and the elites want to see members of the monarchy revered like demi-gods, which has led them to argue that critical discussion must be outlawed; they also oppose any attempt to amend the lèse-majesté law. 

This is the murky ground in which MFP has found itself stuck. Earlier this year, the Constitutional Court had already ruled that the pledge to amend the lèse-majesté law is unconstitutional. What it is now considering is the petition by the Election Commission to punish MFP by dissolving the party. 

If it does so, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) says, such a move would be in breach of international law. In a press release issue last April 17, the Federation said, “The dissolution of a political party and a ban on its leaders and executives from holding political office are inconsistent with several provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a state party.

FIDH added: “Such provisions guarantee the right of freedom of expression (Article 19), the right to freedom of association (Article 22), and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs and to be elected (Article 25). Thailand has an obligation to fully respect, protect, and fulfill these rights.” 

The press release also quoted FIDH Secretary General Adilur Rahman Khan as saying, “Proposing laws is a legitimate and natural prerogative of legislators and should never lead to the dissolution of a political party. The looming dissolution of the Move Forward Party would disenfranchise millions of voters and breach Thailand’s obligations under international human rights law.”

“It’s time,” Khan said, “for Thailand’s so-called ‘independent institutions’ to stop unduly interfering in democratic processes and constantly nullifying the will of the voters.” 

A bad case of déjà vu

Unfortunately, Thais are no strangers to this kind of situation. Four years ago, the previous iteration of MFP, the Future Forward Party, was ordered dissolved by the Constitutional Court, over a loan that the court said was in reality an illegal donation. In 2007, the Constitutional Tribunal set up by the then military council dissolved the Thai Rak Thai party led by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who had been ousted in a coup the year before.

Under Thai election laws, MPs can form a new party if the old party is disbanded and maintain their MP status. In case the court dissolves the MFP, a new pre-registered party will most certainly be announced as a new home for the remaining MFP MPs. For the past several months, the party has vowed to continue its pursuit of other progressive policies. 

But its dissolution will be the final nail in the coffin for any attempt to amend the controversial law via the parliament. The results could push more young Thais, who still support the party and want to see reforms in the monarchy, deeper toward radicalism. Already some are calling for the establishment of a republic or a confederation instead of maintaining the monarchy. 

Still, whatever would be left of MFP under a new name and a new leadership could reap a windfall from the anger that could be generated by a negative ruling on Aug. 7. Its popularity and election prospects could be boosted all the more. Then again, the current government has three years more to go. 

If a fresh election is not called sooner, MFP or its reincarnation may be facing a steep uphill climb in keeping itself in the public mind, since three years or even two years in politics is a long time.

Then there is also the possibility that some of MFP supporters may feel that the party is not adequately pragmatic and has repeatedly failed to deliver despite having won the most MP seats – although it could also be argued  that much of that failure has been through no fault of its own. 

As for Prime Minister Srettha, the individual he appointed as PM’s Office Minister, Pichit Cheunban, on April 28 during a Cabinet reshuffle had indeed been charged with bribery nearly two decades ago. But the charge was eventually dropped. 

Pichit is a lawyer who has handled cases for ex-Prime Minister Thaksin, who in turn continues to loom large over Thai politics. Indeed, should Srettha end up being removed by the court, the expectations are for Thaksin to play an even more prominent role behind the scene. 

Thaksin’s political comeback?

Thaksin, who served two terms as prime minister before his ouster in 2006, is widely regarded as the de facto leader of Pheu Thai, the lead party in the ruling coalition. Officially, the party is led by his daughter, Paethongtarn Shinawatra. 

Thaksin’s relationship with Srettha, according to multiple sources, is not as good as it should be. Srettha was chosen to represent Pheu Thai as one of its three PM candidates as a compromise choice to appease the royalist conservative elites. Pheu Thai was supposed to have a coalition agreement with MFP. 

But when the latter began to suffer setback after setback, Pheu Thai turned around and struck a deal with two military-backed parties that had lost, enabling it to form a government. It put Srettha, also a successful businessman, at the helm, as he was seen as having no radical agenda and spoke the same language as the royalist conservative elites. 

Srettha was elected by legislators as premier on the same day of Thaksin’s return to Thailand after spending some 15 years in exile. Right after stepping off the plane, Thaksin went straight into custody to serve previous convictions for corruption. 

His jail was the Police General Hospital in central Bangkok, but his eight-year sentence was cut into a year by the King. After six months, Thaksin was released on parole, which ends on Aug. 31. 

The 75-year-old billionaire has since been indicted for lèse–majesté and has apparently been put on a short leash by the real powers in Thailand. And so while he has been increasingly exerting more influence over the directions of the Pheu Thai Party and the Pheu Thai-led coalition government, Thaksin keeps being reminded who really is in charge, at least for now, with his recent request to travel to Dubai for a health treatment and a meeting denied by the Criminal Court. 

It is unlikely that Thaksin will slow down or cut back on his efforts to influence Thai politics, however. Earlier in July, he made it clear publicly he was ready to assist the Pheu Thai Party and advise the government.

But a more overtly Thaksin-led government — even if not officially — could lead to a revival and rejuvenation of the inactive anti-Thaksin movement. The fragile truce between the Pheu Thai Party and the conservative elites who see MFP as a greater threat will be put to test if Thaksin will become hands-on in case Srettha is removed from the premiership. 

While it’s unclear who may occupy the Prime Minister’s post if Srettha is gone, Thaksin is certain to cast a long shadow. In late July, Thaksin and his daughter Paethongtarn were spotted staying at a luxury resort owned by Deputy Prime Minister and Bhumjai Thai Party leader Anuin Charnveerakul in picturesque Khao Yai town, and having a good time singing together. Anutin is a possible candidate for the premiership if Srettha is removed. Or it could be Paethongparn herself, although the 37-year-old  is still relatively inexperienced in politics.

All these have left many Thais frustrated and perplexed. The two cases awaiting rulings have even raised concerns among a growing number of Thais about the power and mandate of the Constitutional Court and its limits. Some wonder if the court now has too much power to liberally interpret the Constitution at the expense of the will of the people. ◉