Thailand’s top court tramples over the country’s democracy

Thailand’s constitutional court made a predictably draconian move on August 7th. It dissolved the Move Forward Party, a pro-democracy group which won a plurality of seats in last year’s election. The court ruled unanimously that the party’s proposal to reform the country’s harsh lèse-majesté law—which criminalises criticism of the royal family—posed a threat to Thailand’s constitutional monarchy. More damningly, it banned all of the party’s executives, including Pita Limjaroenrat, its leader, from politics for a decade.

Mr Pita was able to gather the support of young people, who are dissatisfied with the slow pace of change in the country, and middle-class voters, who are frustrated with the economic mismanagement of the junta that took power in 2014 and which perpetuated its rule through a rigged election in 2019. Move Forward promised not only to reform the lèse-majesté law, but to slash the size of the army and break up the concentration of economic power within a few families.

Move Forward formed a majority coalition with populist parties loyal to Thaksin Shinawatra, a former prime minister. But it was blocked from forming a government by the senate, a body whose members had been appointed by the junta. Its erstwhile partners entered into a coalition with army proxy parties to lock Move Forward out of power. Move Forward’s critics then filed the complaint which led to this week’s ruling.

It is not the first time that the alliance of conservative forces in Thailand—including monarchists, the army and a handful of business tycoons—has sought to suppress opposition in this way. Move Forward’s predecessor party, Future Forward, was dissolved in 2020, while two populist parties were banned in 2007 and 2008. After each ruling, party members merely regroup under a new banner. This time will be no different.

The loss of Mr Pita, a Harvard-educated technocrat, may do more damage to Thai politics. But the movement has a deep bench. Several other leaders were banned in 2020. At the time it was thought the party would struggle, but the 43-year-old Mr Pita emerged from obscurity to lead Move Forward to victory. Waiting in the wings now is Sirikanya Tansakul, also 43. She holds the party’s finance portfolio.

A backlash against the court’s ruling seems likely. On August 7th hundreds rallied outside the party’s headquarters in Bangkok. The dissolution of Future Forward led to months of peaceful protests in 2020, which lost momentum only when dozens of the street movement’s leaders were charged under the lèse-majesté law the following year. The perception of injustice boosted the prospects of Move Forward.

Big demonstrations are unlikely in the near term. But history could repeat itself at the next election, due by 2027. If voters give Move Forward’s successor party a majority in parliament in protest at yet another undemocratic dissolution, it would be harder for conservatives to use lawfare to deny it a chance to form a government. This also risks pushing Thais onto the street in even greater numbers.

Meanwhile, foreign governments are watching nervously. In America President Joe Biden’s administration has sought to differentiate itself from the transactional foreign policy of Donald Trump, mostly through expressing support for democracy around the world. But in Asia, America has been preoccupied with competition with China, sometimes forcing it to work with authoritarian regimes. Move Forward’s dissolution had been predicted for months, but the Biden administration had not been overtly critical of the process.

One fear is that coming down too hard on Thailand’s junta will push it into Beijing’s corner. The generals are wise to this; after America suspended some military links following the 2014 coup, junta leaders ordered Chinese submarines and ramped up engagement with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. This time America will have to decide whether to allow a sale of F-16s that had been under discussion. The dissolution of Move Forward offers a robust test of America’s supposed support of democracy in Asia. ■