Thailand’s main opposition party will push to curb the sweeping powers of the Constitutional Court, which sparked fresh turmoil this month when it dissolved the most popular party and ousted the prime minister.
The People’s Party, which is only a few days old and consists of members of the now-dissolved Move Forward, will push for legislation that would make it more difficult for courts to dissolve parties and reduce penalties for politicians, its chairman Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut said in an interview in Bangkok on August 15.
“The court exercises a power that is detached from the people. Its power undermines institutions that are elected by the people without itself representing the people,” said the 37-year-old former technology entrepreneur. “We are trying to put an end to lawfare and the role of independent agencies in destroying elected institutions.”
The Constitutional Court has dissolved more than 100 political parties and removed three prime ministers over the past 27 years, heightening concerns about democracy in Thailand, which has seen two military coups in the same period. Critics say the court protects the interests of the pro-royalty establishment.
The recent rulings signal an erosion of the separation of powers, said Napon Jatusripitak, visiting fellow at ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. He argued that the court de facto dictates the scope of possible legislative action and exerts control over who has the right ethical standards to head the executive.
The court said it had no choice but to dissolve Move Forward to stop the destruction of Thailand’s constitutional monarchy. In its ruling against Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, the court had portrayed itself as the supreme protector of the constitution.
The new opposition party, whose name is a reference to the group behind the 1932 Siamese revolution that ended absolute monarchy, emerged two days after Move Forward’s widely expected dissolution on August 7.
02:09
Constitutional Court dismisses Thai Prime Minister from office
Constitutional Court dismisses Thai Prime Minister from office
The court said Move Forward’s election campaign had broken the rules by pushing for a change to the controversial lese majeste law (Article 112), which protects the Thai royal family from criticism. Thailand’s top politicians were banned from politics for ten years.
A week later, the same court removed Srettha as prime minister, citing his violation of ethical standards by appointing a lawyer with a prison record to the cabinet.
His successor was Paetongtarn Shinawatra. Her father, Thaksin Shinawatra, who is also accused under Article 112, was ousted as prime minister in a coup, while her aunt was dismissed as prime minister by the Constitutional Court shortly before the military took power.
Natthaphong said the People’s Party would prioritise judicial reforms over Article 112 amendments and would seek cross-party support within months and try to pass the bill before the next national election, expected in 2027.
That could be difficult, according to Napon. “The power to dissolve political parties has proven to be the most reliable tool for checking the power of elected forces,” he said. “It is difficult to imagine conservative interest groups giving it up without a fight.”
While the People’s Party remains popular and Move Forward won the most seats in last year’s elections, it faces other legal problems.
An investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission into a bill to amend Article 112 by Move Forward could result in a lifetime political ban for about 25 People’s Party MPs, including Natthaphong. Eight former MPs, including former prime ministerial candidate Pita Limjaroenrat, have already been barred from political life for a decade by the court’s dissolution order.
Move Forward itself was a successor to another reform party, Future Forward, which made its debut in the 2019 elections but was dissolved a year later.
“If we end up being banned, we will simply pass the torch to our friends who will take our place,” Natthaphong said.
The party remains committed to reforming Article 112 even after a court ruling prohibiting Move Forward MPs from campaigning through any means other than the state parliament or calling for a change to the law – a ruling that does not provide any clarity on possible future courses of action.
“We do not yet have a clear timeline for the amendments to Article 112, but we will definitely push them forward,” Natthaphong said. “For now, our focus is on rebuilding ourselves after the dissolution and pushing forward the amendments to the Constitution and the Political Parties Act.”
