The Election Commission (EC) on Thursday staunchly defended its decision to seek the dissolution of the opposition Move Forward Party (MFP) over its support for revising the lese majeste law, asserting that the move adhered to proper legal procedures under the organic law on political parties. EC member Pakorn Mahannop emphasized that the commission’s choice was rooted in Section 92, rather than Section 93, of an organic law, which empowers the EC to request the Constitutional Court to disband a party without conducting an inquiry.
Mr. Pakorn elucidated the distinctions between these sections. According to Section 92 of the 2018 Political Parties Act, if there is credible evidence that a party has engaged in actions deemed hostile to the constitutional monarchy, the EC is mandated to propose the dissolution of the party to the court without the necessity of an inquiry. Conversely, Section 93 necessitates the EC to launch a probe and afford the accused the opportunity to respond to the allegations, thus presenting a significant procedural difference.
The EC found itself compelled to clarify this matter following the Constitutional Court’s directive on Wednesday to submit further evidence in the dissolution case against the MFP. This came after the primary opposition party had vociferously decried the poll agency’s forwarding of the case without any preliminary investigation.
Mr. Pakorn referenced a precedent, noting that the EC’s request to dissolve the Thai Raksachart Party ahead of the 2019 election also utilized Section 92 of the political party law. This petition was subsequently accepted by the Constitutional Court, which ruled in favor of dissolving the TRC. This historical context underscored the consistency in the EC’s application of the law.
He also delineated that the EC’s opinions on whether a political party should be dissolved hold no bearing whatsoever. “The EC can’t provide an opinion on such matters—whether it agrees or disagrees is irrelevant. It’s bound to comply with the law and execute what the law necessitates. We adhere to and respect the Constitutional Court’s decisions,” he added.
When confronted with EC Chair Ittiporn Boonpracong’s remarks in a video clip where he stated that the EC did not follow the legal procedures, Mr. Pakorn urged viewers to consider the context of the chair’s remarks rather than isolating a segment of it.
Responding to the MFP’s assertion that Section 93 also applied to its case, Mr. Pakorn maintained that the EC’s evaluation placed the case under the purview of Section 92. This meticulous delineation underscores the legal rigor with which the EC processes its decisions.
The EC’s decision to petition the Constitutional Court to disband the MFP was a direct consequence of the court’s ruling on January 31 of this year, which concluded that the MFP’s ongoing initiatives to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code, known as the lese majeste law, suggested an intention to destabilize the constitutional monarchy.
In the labyrinth of legal and political drama, the EC’s stance seems to reflect an unwavering commitment to upholding the law while navigating the contentious waters of political party regulations. This saga is far from monotonous; it encapsulates legal intricacies, political strategies, and the perpetual tension between governance and dissent in a democratic tapestry.
Whether you view the EC’s actions as judicious or contentious, one thing remains clear: the intersection of law and politics in Thailand is a dance as precarious as it is riveting, with each step echoing through the corridors of power and public discourse. The clarity and transparency of such proceedings are not only essential for legal adherence but also for maintaining the sanctity of democratic values in turbulent times.
The EC’s decision to dissolve the MFP is just another example of political persecution.
I disagree, Joe. They’re just following the law. If MFP did something wrong, they should face the consequences.
But Section 93 should’ve been used, which allows for an inquiry. This was a rush job to silence dissent.
Samantha, it’s pretty obvious that the EC is interpreting the law in a way that benefits their political allies.
Why is everyone ignoring the fact that the law itself is undemocratic? The lese majeste law needs to be revised!
Seems like the EC is more interested in maintaining the status quo than ensuring fair play.
Maybe, Chuck, but laws are in place for a reason. If you break them, there are consequences.
What makes me laugh is how they didn’t even bother with an investigation. They just went straight to the court. Clearly, this is rigged.
It sets a dangerous precedent. If this becomes the norm, any opposition party could be disbanded without a fair trial.
Exactly! No inquiry means no accountability. Is this really democratic?
Totally agree. This kind of move undermines public trust in democratic processes.
The EC is just doing its job. If you don’t like the laws, work towards changing them, but follow the rules in place until then.
People are acting like Thailand isn’t a Constitutional Monarchy. The lese majeste law protects that structure. MFP’s actions were reckless.
It’s about time someone stood up to unjust laws. Kudos to the MFP for trying to make changes.
Standing up to ‘unjust laws’ shouldn’t mean breaking them. There are proper channels for changing laws.
But those channels are often blocked by the very people benefiting from these unjust laws. Sometimes, you need to take a stand.
Changing laws is a long process. MFP should have been more strategic about it.
There’s no denying the EC is operating under a political agenda. Laws are just their excuse.
What proof do you have of that, Somchai? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Nadia, it’s naive to think politics and power plays don’t influence these decisions.
The EC’s role is to uphold democratic processes. If MFP’s actions threatened the constitutional monarchy, then they did their job.
Funny how people scream democracy only when things go their way. The EC followed the law; take it up with the court if you have an issue.
But it should have gone through Section 93. The lack of an inquiry is troubling and against democratic principles.
True, but courts have the final say. If the EC misstepped, the court will overturn it. Let’s not jump to conclusions.
The democracy in Thailand is fragile, targeting opposition parties like MFP can weaken it further.
Maybe, but opposition parties need to act responsibly too. Calling for radical changes can destabilize the country.
Seems convenient for the EC to interpret laws that fit their narrative. It’s all political theater.
Glad someone else sees the bigger picture here. It’s more about power than legal adherence.
Dissolving political parties without a proper inquiry could set a dangerous precedent for future democracy in Thailand.
How can people trust the EC when it acts so arbitrarily? They’re supposed to protect democracy, not dismantle it.
Why are people supporting a party that wants to change a law important for the constitutional monarchy? MFP was playing with fire.
Ultimately, who suffers? The people of Thailand. This political tug-of-war needs to end.
The legal framework might be flawed, but as citizens, we should work to fix it rather than support those who blatantly break it.
If we don’t question these decisions, we’re complicit in letting democracy erode right under our noses.
What hope is there for reform if any attempt at change is met with dissolution? MFP’s efforts were in good faith.
Upholding the law can sometimes mean making unpopular decisions. MFP should have known better.