Ahead of the 7 August Constitutional Court ruling on the dissolution of the Move Forward Party (MFP), Somchai Preechasilpakul from Chiang Mai University discussed the Court’s role in political party dissolution and expressed hope that its ruling will not inflict more wounds on Thai society.

Somchai Preechasilpakul, a lecturer at Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Law, discussed the role of the Constitutional Court in political party dissolution.  He also explained the relations between the Court and Thai political elites.

Somchai Preechasilpakul

The Court is set to rule on a dissolution petition filed by the Election Commission (EC) after a Court decision on 31 January that the campaign of former MFP leader Pita Limjaroenrat and his party to amend the royal defamation law was an effort to overthrow the democratic regime with the King as Head of State.

Will conservative elites leave MFP in the political system?

According to Somchai, the Court’s ruling will clarify how political parties with majority support, such as the MFP, figure in Thai politics. As of late, the popularity of such parties has seemingly been interpreted as a threat to the standing of Thai elites.

MFP is the latest in a string of popular parties to face dissolution. Its predecessor, the Future Forward Party, and several precursors of the Pheu Thai Party, Thai Rak Thai and the People Power Parties, were dissolved after gaining significant public support.

In Somchai’s view, defeating such parties by dissolving them is a fool’s errand that will only increase the popularity of their successors.  He thinks that elites should have learned by now that such political manoeuvrings will not help to unravel the political crisis that has existed in Thailand for over 10 years.  He thinks, instead, that elites will eventually be backed into a corner and relent.

The Constitutional Court and legal principles

Somchai believes that the Constitutional Court is unpredictable and says that many of its verdicts have bewildered the general public. He also thinks that if the Court adheres to the law, it will have no legal basis for ordering MFP’s dissolution.

The case has at least three controversial elements: whether the Election Commission petition is lawful, whether the Court has the power to deliberate in the case, and finally whether MFP’s actions warrant its dissolution.

The last point is quite problematic.  Under the Constitution, the legislative branch is responsible for proposing, amending, and repealing the law. According to Somchai, this means that the MFP campaign was within the scope of the law.

He also noted that the royal defamation law is not beyond revision as nothing prohibits its amendment.  In fact, it was amended in the past.  In 1976 after the Thammasat Massacre, the law was strengthened by the National Administrative Reform Council, which raised penalties to 3-15 years imprisonment, a change that has remained in place up to the present.

Somchai added that the Court’s 31 January ruling that the MFP’s campaign was an improper exercise of its constitutional rights and liberties in order to overthrow the democratic regime with the King as Head of State – is relatively problematic.

“This is a poison tree and if we accept this ruling and let it stand, it will bear poisonous fruits for the democratic system in Thailand,” the lecturer said.

He added that the EC did not conduct its own investigation but instead used evidence from the Court’s ruling about MFP members’ actions such as participating in pro-democracy protests or bailing out detained activists charged with royal defamation. In Somchai’s view, their petition was sloppy; they would have been aware of the MFP campaign and should be able to explain why the party was only accused of wrong-doing later.

The Constitutional Court as tool for maintaining elite power

According to Somchai, the Constitutional Court was established to uphold and protect the people’s freedom and liberty and help move democracy forward. He added that it has failed to live up to expectations since the conflict in 2006.

He explained by noting that legal principles seldom figure in predicting Court decisions. Instead, its verdicts could be guess by considering the political party involved and the threat it posed to status quo elites.

“Many people do not believe that the Constitutional Court uses straightforward principles. I do not know whether it is true, but when predicting, I assume that too,”  noted Somchai.

Noting that this lack of trust would cause problems for the Constitutional Court in the long run, he advised elites to realise that legal maneouvering is futile and instead, jump into the competition according to the democratic system. as many countries have done.

This, he thinks, would force conservatives to go beyond ‘nation, religion, and king’ and articulate an ideological platform, a good thing in that the country needs conservatives no less than it does reform-oriented parties like MFP.

“If the Constitutional Court really has good intentions for Thai society, it should apply legal principles to deliberate the issue in disputes. I don’t call on the Court to stand for MFP; it is not necessary,” said Somchai.

Observing that Thai society has gone through enough difficult situations, Somchai believes that this is the time to push back towards democracy.