Thailand’s Constitutional Court is expected to rule on Wednesday whether the progressive Move Forward Party (MFP) violated the constitution when it pledged to change the country’s lese majeste law that bans criticism of the royal family.
If the court rules against the MFP, the party could be dissolved and its leaders banned for 10 years, marking a sharp turnaround in its fortunes since its surprise election victory just over a year ago.
At that time, millions of young Thais rallied behind charismatic MFP leader Pita Limjaroenrat, galvanized by the party’s promise of change. His flagship policy was to reform Section 112 of Thailand’s Penal Code, which restricts all criticism of the monarchy.
The party’s victory and reform agenda have placed it firmly in the crosshairs of Thailand’s long-standing conservative elite. Pita was prevented from becoming prime minister and forming a government.
With tomorrow’s ruling set to define Thai democracy for years to come, here’s everything you need to know about the case:
What brought MFP to this point?
The MFP is the de facto successor to the Future Forward Party (FFP), which came third in Thailand’s 2019 general election on an anti-junta platform, shaking up the country’s ruling class.
After initially surviving a Constitutional Court case that accused it of trying to overthrow the monarchy, the FFP was disbanded in February 2020 after it was found to have violated election financing laws by accepting a loan from its leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.
Following the decision, 55 of the FFP’s 65 members of parliament joined the MFP, pledging to continue its progressive agenda. One such policy before last May’s elections saw the MFP commit to amending Section 112, reducing the maximum prison sentence for defaming the king from 15 years to one year and/or a fine of 300,000 Thai baht (about 8,400 dollars).
It was on this platform that the MFP secured a surprise electoral victory in 2023, winning 151 seats in Thailand’s 500-seat House of Representatives, 10 more than Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s second-placed Pheu Thai party.
The MFP, however, fell short of the 251 seats needed for an absolute majority, with attempts to form a coalition with other pro-democracy parties, including Pheu Thai, blocked by Thailand’s military-installed Senate, using the power handed to it by an army of 2017. – Constitution drawn up.
In July, the Constitutional Court suspended Pita as deputy for shares he allegedly held in a now-defunct broadcaster – charges of which he was later acquitted. Pheu Thai successfully formed its own coalition, incorporating parties aligned with the military and excluding the MFP.
In January of this year, the Constitutional Court ruled that the lese majesta changes proposed by the MFP constituted a violation of Section 49 of the Constitution, which prohibits attempts to “overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State”.
It ordered the party to “cease any act, expression of opinion by speech, writing, publication or propaganda or transmission of any message in other forms” that sought to amend Section 112.
What should the court decide now?
In March, the Constitutional Court agreed to review a petition from the Electoral Commission requesting that the MFP be dissolved and its leaders banned from participating in politics for 10 years under Section 112. The commission justified its request by pointing to the decision of the January court, saying there was “evidence that Move Forward undermines the democratic system with the king as head of state”.
MFP argued, in a written defense filed on June 4, that the court did not have jurisdiction and that the commission’s petition process was illegal. It argued, among other things, that the MFP had no intention of overturning the system, dissolution should be a last resort, and any political bans should be proportionate and targeted at specific MFP members.
Patrick Phongsathorn, senior defense expert at Thailand-based human rights NGO Fortify Rights, said the commission was “compromising its own neutrality and political independence” by making this case against the MFP.
“This case appears to be politically motivated and follows a general pattern in which the Thai establishment seeks to silence increasingly popular opposition parties,” he told Al Jazeera.
Experts have little hope that the MFP will get an extension. With a precedent set by the dissolution of the FFP in 2020 and the court ruling in January against the MFP, Mark S Cogan, associate professor of peace and conflict studies at Japan’s Kansai Gaidai University, whose research focuses on authoritarian regimes in Southeast Asia , said that the “writing is on the wall”.
“The Constitutional Court already signaled earlier this year where it is going,” he told Al Jazeera. “The Constitutional Court, an institution with a history of dissolving political parties, declared in January that the reform of Article 112 was a betrayal, so what other message could it send now?”
What happens next?
The nine-member Constitutional Court will meet on Wednesday at 9:30 am local time (02:30 GMT) and will read its decision at 3:30 pm (07:30 GMT).
Like the youth-led demonstrations in 2020 following the dissolution of the FFP, Cogan predicts there will be protests if the MFP is dissolved, although the scale may be difficult to predict.
“The protests will have plenty of space [Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin]who failed to defend Pita and who probably dissolved Pheu Thai’s credibility within Thailand’s democratic movement when he agreed to a majority government with military and monarchy-aligned parties,” he said.
While Phongsathorn said any move to dissolve the MFP would be just the latest in a “broader pattern” in Thailand of “weaponizing the judiciary against political opposition”, the case is “more significant” given the party’s huge popularity.
But even if the MFP were dissolved, says Phongsathorn, “the progressive genie is already out of the bottle and it will be very difficult to put it back”.
Just as the FFP was replaced by the MFP, “some other party will be established to represent the views of this evolving social movement,” he said.
For his part, former MFP leader Pita presents an optimistic public message to his supporters, urging them not to lose hope, regardless of the result.
He will be present in court when the decision is made.
“We are fighting this not just for the sake of my personal future or the future of my party, but we want to make sure that if it happens, that Pita becomes the last person, the Move Forward Party becomes the last party, that if add it to the cemetery of political parties,” he told the Associated Press news agency.
This story originally appeared on Aljazeera.com read the full story
