Following the political turmoil caused by the Constitutional Court’s dismissal of former PM Paetongtarn Shinawatra, a controversy has arisen over whether the acting PM has the power to dissolve parliament. According to Worachet Pakeerut, a lecturer at Thammasat University’s Faculty of Law, he does.

Section 103 of the 2017 Constitution stipulates that a parliamentary dissolution requires a Royal Decree signed by the King. Less clear is the matter of who can issue a countersignature for the government. After Paetongtarn’s dismissal, Thai legal experts have been heatedly debating the matter, with several arguing that Acting PM Phumtham Wechayachai does not have the authority.

Worachet disagrees.  He explains that the current constitution allows for two scenarios.  In the first, although cabinet members are required to leave office after a PM has been removed, they maintain full authority and are still required to perform their duties until a new cabinet can be appointed. In the second, when parliament is dissolved, the cabinet is likewise required to stand down, but only after a new cabinet assumes office.  According to Worachet, the first scenario, in which cabinet ministers retain full authority, is what Thailand is facing at the moment.

According to political etiquette, lame duck cabinets are supposed to refrain from making major policy decisions, leaving these for a new government. They are not prohibited from doing so, however.  With regard to parliament dissolution, there are only two constitutional restrictions: that parliament cannot be dissolved while a no-confidence motion is pending, and that it cannot be dissolved twice for a matter that led to an earlier dissolution.

Although dissolutions were previously determined by the cabinet, they have more recently occurred after the PM submitted a request to the King. According to Worachet, this means that the acting PM has the power to petition to the Throne, and once the King affixes his signature, parliament is dissolved.

Responding to a remark made by Council of State Secretary General Pakorn Nilprapunt that a move by the acting PM to dissolve parliament would amount to an act offensive to the King, Worachet argued that dissolution was a political decision for which a counter signatory, not the Monarch, was responsible.

He believes that the only real issue is whether the authority to dissolve parliament lies with the PM or the cabinet as a whole, a matter that is not clearly defined in the Constitution. If it lies with the PM, Phumtham, the acting PM, has the authority to submit petition to the King and dissolve parliament. If it sits with the cabinet, a decision must be made by cabinet members before submitting a petition, with the PM merely acting as a counter signatory on behalf of the whole Cabinet.

According to Worachet, Thailand previously used the latter method. More recently, however Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha used the PM’s authority to effect a dissolution.

He prefers collective cabinet decision making, noting that the Thai legal system does not place confidence in the PM alone.  He adds that under the Thai Constitution, a no-confidence debate against a PM is essentially a critique of a single cabinet member.

As dissolution is a tool designed for the executive branch to address political issues and break deadlocks, Worachet believes that it should be at the discretion of the administration. He is also concerned that those claiming the Acting PM cannot dissolve parliament might hope for a political deadlock, which could then be used as an excuse to invoke a Thai constitutional convention.

Highly volatile and controversial, such a convention might result in conservative political outcomes, such as allowing a new PM to be appointed by the Palace.