When Chaithawat Tulathon, the vibrant leader of the opposition Move Forward Party (MFP), flanked by his resilient predecessor Pita Limjaroenrat, held a press conference at parliament on January 31, the air was thick with anticipation and concern. (Photo: Nutthawat Wichieanbut)
Several political analysts have gravely predicted that the MFP faces imminent dissolution when the Constitutional Court delivers its ruling on Wednesday. The tension stems from a damaging decision by the court earlier this year, where it was declared that the MFP’s efforts to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code, known as the lese majeste law, reflected an intention to destabilize the constitutional monarchy.
This previous ruling not only barred the MFP from attempting to amend Section 112 through non-legislative means but provided the Election Commission (EC) with grounds to seek the party’s dissolution for allegedly violating Section 92 of the organic law on political parties. This law empowers the court to dissolve any party perceived as a threat to the constitutional monarchy. The EC has also requested that the rights of party executives to stand for election be revoked and banned for 10 years if they lose those rights under Sections 92 and 94 of the law.
The political landscape appears grim for the MFP, and many believe the court’s decision could critically impact the party’s future. If the party executive members are politically banned, they may follow in the footsteps of former key members of the disbanded Future Forward Party (FFP), who regrouped after their party’s dissolution in 2020 due to a loan controversy. This has led to speculation that the MFP has earmarked the Thinkakhao Chaovilai Party (TKCV) as a potential new political refuge for its MPs in case of dissolution.
Wanwichit Boonprong, a political science lecturer at Rangsit University, shared with the Bangkok Post that the chances of a favorable outcome for the MFP are slim given the current political climate and the party’s missed opportunities to effectively defend itself. He mentioned that the MFP’s brightest hope rests on the written arguments by Suraphol Nitikraipote, a public law professor and party witness. But unfortunately, the court rejected the inquiry where these arguments could have been presented.
According to Suraphol’s arguments, advocating for amendments to Section 112 or participating in rallies against the lese majeste law are lawful expressions under democratic principles. Moreover, MFP MPs utilizing their status to guarantee bail for lese majeste suspects is an individual action that should not implicate the whole party.
Wanwichit pointed out a perceived lack of confidence within the opposition, citing the party’s release of promotional materials featuring deputy leader Sirikanya Tansakul as a potential new leader. “This is indicative of low confidence in winning the case, so the party is trying to rally its supporters and boost morale,” he said.
Jade Donavanik, chairman of the Faculty of Law College of Asian Scholars, noted that while there’s a high likelihood that the MFP could be disbanded and its executives barred from politics, there are also three possible positive outcomes: the EC’s process could be deemed flawed, requiring the dissolution process to restart; the party might be found innocent of the alleged activities, or the court could issue a fresh warning to the party.
Regarding what decision would best serve the public interest, Mr. Jade opined that a court warning would be favorable for everyone involved. However, he expressed concerns about the MFP’s actions related to the monarchy, noting that these could be construed as ongoing activities despite previous warnings.
As the crucial Wednesday approaches, MFP deputy leader Pol Maj Gen Supisarn Bhakdinarinath disclosed that members will gather at the party’s headquarters to listen to the court ruling. In case of dissolution, a new executive board is poised to be announced immediately. The MPs will transition to a new party prepared to accommodate them, with a high-profile, possibly female leader taking the helm.
Pol Maj Gen Supisarn added that the fate of 44 MFP MPs, including himself, who backed proposed amendments to the lese majeste law remains uncertain and could be subject to a lifetime ban if found culpable by the anti-graft agency. “My experience and gut feeling suggest a 10% chance of survival, up from 1% thanks to Mr. Suraphol’s arguments,” he remarked.
If the court rules favorably for the MFP, the party plans to broaden its base, focus on the digital and grassroots economy, and continue its legislative process to amend the lese majeste law. Inside sources indicate that the new political party, likely the TKCV, might later be renamed, and there’s a consensus that it should be led by Ms. Sirikanya.
Among those facing a political ban if the party is dissolved are prominent figures like former leader and chief adviser Pita Limjaroenrat, current leader Chaithawat Tulathon, and House deputy speaker now with the Fair Party, Padipat Suntiphada.
Recently, Mr. Chaithawat and Mr. Pita unveiled the party’s closing arguments submitted to the court, emphasizing nine key points why the MFP should not be disbanded, including the challenge against the court’s authority to dissolve the party, scrutiny over the EC’s legitimacy in seeking dissolution, and defending their activities as not intending to subvert the constitutional monarchy.
Mr. Pita expressed his belief that the court would base its decision on facts and law, ensuring fair treatment for the party. He reassured that in the event of an unfavorable ruling, the public’s right to peaceful assembly would be respected, and the party would not incite violence.
Politically, MFP MPs would be required to join a new party within 60 days post-dissolution to retain their status, as pointed out by Wanwichit. If executives are banned, the MFP will no longer hold the majority, with many MPs likely transitioning to the planned new party, and a few possibly defecting to government coalition partners.
The party seems poised to grow stronger despite potential setbacks, echoing the trajectory of its predecessor. However, risk looms if its political stance remains unyielding, as it might lose hesitant supporters. On the other hand, compromising on the controversial lese majeste law might attract Pheu Thai Party voters.
Should the party endure this trial, it could leverage the court’s decision to bolster supporter confidence and steer clear of including lese majeste law amendments in future campaigns. Meanwhile, Mr. Jade added that banned executives might join the Progressive Movement to advance their agenda or intensify efforts through international engagement and constitutional amendments to better reflect their political vision.
In closing sentiments, Mr. Chaithawat shared that despite attempts to sway the party MPs by some government factions, his confidence in his party members remains unshaken.
This is a blatant attack on democracy! The MFP is being targeted just because they want to amend an outdated law.
Or maybe they’re trying to destabilize the monarchy. You can’t just go around changing things that have been in place for years.
But isn’t it democratic to challenge and change laws that don’t fit modern society anymore?
Elaine is right! Societies evolve and so should laws. The monarchy shouldn’t be above criticism.
How does wanting to change a law mean destabilizing the monarchy? That’s a stretch, Tommy.
Amending Section 112 can lead to widespread criticism and undermine respect for the institution. It’s not a stretch if you consider the implications.
Why do these political parties keep facing dissolutions? This is the second time after FFP.
Maybe because they keep challenging the status quo? It shows how threatened the established order feels.
True. It makes you wonder if there’s really democratic freedom in this country.
Whatever the outcome, MFP just needs to adapt and overcome. Even if disbanded, they can regroup like they did before.
It’s infuriating that the court rejected Suraphol’s arguments. Those were valid points about freedom of expression.
I agree. Legal expression is part of democracy, and ignoring that just shows the court’s bias.
Exactly! Suraphol’s arguments should have been heard. This sets a scary precedent for the future.
Valid points or not, the court makes the rules. We need to respect their decision.
I wonder what impact this will have on the general public. Will this cause more unrest?
Probably. People are already frustrated; this could be the tipping point.
True, Lucy. The public unrest could quickly escalate if they feel democracy is under threat.
Given the political climate, it’s sadly predictable that the MFP might face dissolution. The system is engineered to suppress any significant change.
Do you think the new party, TKCV, can pick up where MFP left off if they’re dissolved?
Absolutely. They’ve got the momentum and public support. Changing the name won’t change their mission.
Let’s hope so. People need a voice, and MFP/TKCV can be it.
Seems like another witch hunt! They should focus on real issues like the economy and healthcare instead of dissolving parties.
Whether you agree with MFP’s politics or not, this overreach by the court is concerning. It stifles political diversity.
Definitely. Political diversity is a must for a genuine democracy. The court’s actions are troubling.
At this rate, soon we’ll only have a one-party system, and that’s not democracy.
Given how things went with the FFP, how can the MFP—or whatever they’re called next—really expect fair treatment?
They likely don’t, but they’re playing the long game. Building public support now could pay off later.
True, but the wait can be agonizing. People need a voice now, not years from now.
MFP should focus their energy on broader issues like the grassroots economy. Tweaking 112 is just a distraction.
What’s with the obsession over one law? There are bigger fish to fry, like corruption and poverty.
Because Section 112 is about fundamental freedoms. Fixing it affects other aspects like expression and justice.
I get it, Mark, but you can’t ignore the daily struggles people face. Both issues are important.
The party needs to compromise on their extreme stance to maintain support. Being unyielding will only hurt them.
Interestingly, the MFP’s possible dissolution could make them stronger. It’ll rally their base and gain new supporters.
Yes, adversity builds resilience. People are tired of the same old politics and might back MFP even more.
If they can’t win this time, what makes you think they’ll succeed in the future? The system is rigged.
Change doesn’t happen overnight, Billie. Perseverance is key, even in a rigged system.
Fair point, Henry. It’s just frustrating to watch.
If MFP MPs join the TKCV, will they really be able to keep their momentum, or will it fade away?
A 10% chance of survival? That’s bleak. It’s clear the system wants them gone.
Bleak indeed, Carlos. But let’s not forget, even a small chance is still a chance. They could pull through.