The Constitutional Court has ruled that Move Forward, the progressive party that won last year’s election, poses a threat to the monarchy and must be dissolved. This is effectively the party’s second dissolution, as the same court dissolved Move Forward’s predecessor, Future Forward, in 2020. Other parties—Thai Rak Thai, People Power, and Thai Raksa Chart—have suffered the same fate and, like Move Forward and Future Forward, they were all anti-establishment and opposed to military rule.
This afternoon’s verdict was a foregone conclusion, as the court had already ruled in January that Move Forward’s manifesto pledge to amend the lèse-majesté law violated article 49 of the constitution, according to which it is forbidden “to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” In such circumstances, article 92 of the Organic Act on Political Parties (2017) states that the Election Commission of Thailand “shall file a petition to the Constitutional Court to dissolve such political party.” (The ECT did so in March.)
Former party leader Pita Limjaroenrat was under no illusions about the outcome, writing an online op-ed for The Economist last week discussing “Move Forward and whatever political vehicle takes our place after the ruling on August 7th.” In its defence before today’s judgement, Move Forward made the perfectly reasonable case that lèse-majesté is a law like any other, and should therefore be subject to amendment by parliamentary vote. The party has not sought to repeal the law, only to reduce its severity. Needless to say, this is absolutely nothing like the treason described in article 49.
Since winning the election, Move Forward has faced sustained opposition in an attempt to prevent it from gaining power. On the eve of the parliamentary vote for a new PM, in a decision timed to cause maximum impact, the ECT petitioned the Constitutional Court to investigate Pita for alleged ownership of media shares. Most senators appointed by the military made clear that they would never endorse a Move Forward candidate, despite the party’s mandate from the election result.
Then, on the morning of the second prime ministerial vote, the Constitutional Court suspended Pita from parliament, and once again the timing was hardly coincidental. Pita was eventually exonerated, though his suspension during the investigation prevented him from being renominated as PM. On the other hand, Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin has not been suspended while the court investigates his alleged violation of article 160 of the constitution.
This afternoon’s verdict was a foregone conclusion, as the court had already ruled in January that Move Forward’s manifesto pledge to amend the lèse-majesté law violated article 49 of the constitution, according to which it is forbidden “to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” In such circumstances, article 92 of the Organic Act on Political Parties (2017) states that the Election Commission of Thailand “shall file a petition to the Constitutional Court to dissolve such political party.” (The ECT did so in March.)
Former party leader Pita Limjaroenrat was under no illusions about the outcome, writing an online op-ed for The Economist last week discussing “Move Forward and whatever political vehicle takes our place after the ruling on August 7th.” In its defence before today’s judgement, Move Forward made the perfectly reasonable case that lèse-majesté is a law like any other, and should therefore be subject to amendment by parliamentary vote. The party has not sought to repeal the law, only to reduce its severity. Needless to say, this is absolutely nothing like the treason described in article 49.
Since winning the election, Move Forward has faced sustained opposition in an attempt to prevent it from gaining power. On the eve of the parliamentary vote for a new PM, in a decision timed to cause maximum impact, the ECT petitioned the Constitutional Court to investigate Pita for alleged ownership of media shares. Most senators appointed by the military made clear that they would never endorse a Move Forward candidate, despite the party’s mandate from the election result.
Then, on the morning of the second prime ministerial vote, the Constitutional Court suspended Pita from parliament, and once again the timing was hardly coincidental. Pita was eventually exonerated, though his suspension during the investigation prevented him from being renominated as PM. On the other hand, Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin has not been suspended while the court investigates his alleged violation of article 160 of the constitution.
Even Move Forward’s ostensible allies conspired to keep the party out of office. Despite repeated assurances to the contrary, Pheu Thai joined with United Thai Nation and Palang Pracharath—the political wings of the military junta—in a coalition that was explicitly designed to exclude Move Forward. (Thaksin was photographed exchanging respectful wai greetings with coup leader Prayut Chan-o-cha at a cremation ceremony yesterday, in the first public meeting between Thailand’s two most influential political figures.)
The dissolution has disenfranchised Move Forward’s 14 million voters, though the party will reconstitute itself under a different name, and its popularity is likely to increase, as the 2023 election result demonstrated that a majority of the electorate are opposed to the military establishment. Many disillusioned former Pheu Thai voters are also likely to support Move Forward’s successor. But a revival of the student demonstrations that took place after Future Forward’s dissolution is less likely, as the protest leaders have been charged with lèse-majesté and other offences.
The dissolution has disenfranchised Move Forward’s 14 million voters, though the party will reconstitute itself under a different name, and its popularity is likely to increase, as the 2023 election result demonstrated that a majority of the electorate are opposed to the military establishment. Many disillusioned former Pheu Thai voters are also likely to support Move Forward’s successor. But a revival of the student demonstrations that took place after Future Forward’s dissolution is less likely, as the protest leaders have been charged with lèse-majesté and other offences.
