Thailand’s Rigged Constitution: Rewriting Democracy, Empowering the Powerful
What do you get when a nation’s foundational law becomes its foremost battleground? Thailand, 2025. It’s not just a suspended Prime Minister, a powerful constitutional court, and a history of military intervention; it’s a system rigged against itself, where the rules of the game are constantly rewritten to favor the already powerful. The recent sparring between Pheu Thai and Bhumjaithai, reported by the Bangkok Post, isn’t about parliamentary procedure; it’s a symptom of a deeper malaise — a democracy perpetually caught in a constitutional trap.
The core issue is the constitution, specifically its capacity to both define and undermine democratic governance. Phumtham Wechayachai’s skepticism of Bhumjaithai’s commitment to constitutional reform isn’t just political posturing; it’s a reflection of a broken promise baked into the system. “Are they certain that the PP can work with Bhumjaithai to amend the charter? The party’s MPs walked out of the chamber, saying they weren’t ready to support changes to the constitution. How can the PP be confident that they will have changed their tune in six months?” This isn’t merely distrust among political actors; it’s the rational calculation of actors operating within a fundamentally untrustworthy system.
To truly understand this friction, we need to pull back and consider the architecture of Thai power. Thailand has endured a relentless cycle of coups and constitutional revisions. The current constitution, drafted in the wake of the 2014 military coup, is widely understood as a deliberate attempt to hamstring elected governments, particularly those aligned with the legacy of Thaksin Shinawatra. It empowers the Constitutional Court and a Senate stacked with military appointees to act as a perpetual veto on the elected lower house.
Consider this: since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932, Thailand has averaged a new constitution roughly every four and a half years. Each revision isn’t merely a technical adjustment; it’s an admission of systemic failure. As Benedict Anderson argued in his seminal work, “Imagined Communities,” nations require a shared narrative to thrive. The constant rewriting of the foundational text exposes a deep and persistent wound in Thailand’s national identity, a failure to forge a collective vision of its own governance.
Why is constitutional revision such a fraught process? Because it represents a zero-sum game between competing visions for Thailand’s future. Should Thailand embrace a fully empowered democracy, or should unelected institutions maintain significant power to ensure “stability,” a term that often translates to the preservation of the status quo? This tension extends beyond current political actors. Scholars like Thongchai Winichakul have meticulously documented how Thai history has been re-written to legitimize authoritarianism. The critical question now is whether these checks and balances are safeguards against democratic excess or instruments of democratic suppression. The constitution is designed to be a bulwark against tyranny, but it is slowly becoming the instrument of it.
The implications of this political high-wire act are profound. If the Constitutional Court removes Paetongtarn Shinawatra, and Bhumjaithai successfully elevates Anutin Charnvirakul to the premiership, it would signal a decisive victory for conservative forces and further entrench the perception that electoral outcomes are ultimately subject to the whims of unelected power brokers. It risks solidifying a dangerous feedback loop: eroding public trust in the political process, breeding cynicism, and ultimately undermining the very foundations of Thai democracy. And it makes it very difficult for any future government to ever build the social trust that’s required for any successful and well-functioning democracy.
