Constitution Court dissolves Thai political party

The nine-judge Constitution Court in its verdict has dissolved the Move Forward Party for campaigning to amend Article 112 of the Constitution which holds anything said or done against the monarch to be treason. The court said that the Move Forward Party had based its campaign in the 2023 parliamentary election on the issue of amending Article 112 of the Criminal Code, which the court said that the party was trying to undermine the constitutional monarchy of the country.

The Move Forward party had won the largest number of seats in the national elections last year, but the Senate, which was dominated by the army-recommended conservative majority, did not allow party leader Pita Limjaroenrat. The court had also disqualified 11 of the party executives for 10 years from participating in politics and contesting election. The 142 members who are members of parliament have 60 days to migrate to another party and retain their seats. The court said, “Expressions of opinion toward legal amendments and the vote campaigns posed significant threats to national security.”

The Thai Supreme Court’s decision is sure to raise eyebrows. But Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin defended the court’s independence. He said on August 6: “The executive branch is in no position to interfere with the justice process. We will not allow other countries to do so, either. Thailand’s judicial process I independent and is in line with international standards.”

Usana Berananda, Thai ambassador to the United Nations, in a letter sent on August 2 said, “The Thai Constitutional Court is independent and represents one of the pillars of democracy founded on checks and balances. The decision will be made in accordance with established law and the constitution.”

There were concerns in the political circles about the implications of the court’s decision because it was certain that the court was going to dissolve the party. Senator Sen Nantana Nantavaropas of the New Breed group said that the court’s order would take a democracy backwards. She argued that no public agency should have the right to shape the political landscape.

The interesting part of the case is that the Move Forward Party was not asking for the removal of Article 112. Its contention was that the complaint over an insult to the monarchy should emerge from the royal household, and not from any person or organization as is the case. It also asked the sentencing should be for lesser period, and that a criticism of the monarchy should be treated separately from those concerning national security. It appears that the court took the narrow view that any criticism of the monarchy is also a threat to national security.

Thailand is a fierce democracy at the people’s level. They reject corrupt politicians and they defy time and again the army by protesting in the streets, and when they get a chance to vote they vote for democratic parties. The army in Thailand plays a double role. It defends the monarchy and it also intervenes when elected political leaders are corrupt and powerful. Thailand has experienced spells of army rule, broken by democratic restoration.

But Thailand chooses to remain a democracy in form at least, and elections are held to restore the balance. Any attempt by popular politicians to weaken the influence of army and that of the monarchy is fiercely resisted by the army. In many ways, Thailand is both a resilient democracy as well as fragile. Democracy is interrupted but it comes back. The dissolution of the Move Forward Party is not the catastrophe it may appear to be. The party will come back in a new form and new leaders emerge with stronger democratic credentials.