Thailand’s Democracy on Trial: Military Rigging Threatens Elected Leader
Thailand’s political theater is, once again, captivating — but the real drama isn’t on the stage; it’s in the rigging. A leaked phone call allegedly featuring Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra — the specific accusations almost beside the point — has triggered a cascade of events that could topple her government. But focusing solely on Paetongtarn and her potential indiscretions is like blaming a single snowflake for an avalanche. This isn’t about individual ethics; it’s about the bedrock of Thai democracy, perpetually undermined by the enduring power of the military, a politicized judiciary, and a constitution designed to constrain, not liberate, elected leaders. The Constitutional Court’s decision on whether to accept the petition against her, expected Tuesday according to the Bangkok Post, isn’t just a legal process; it’s a high-stakes power play in a long-running game.
The petition, brought by 36 senators, alleges that Ms. Paetongtarn lacks the qualifications and integrity required by the constitution. While Pheu Thai downplays any possible suspension, there is little doubt that the political stakes are monumental. Stithorn Thananithichot, director of the Office of Innovation for Democracy at King Prajadhipok’s Institute, even suggests that suspension might temporarily ease public pressure. “A caretaker prime minister would take over until a court ruling, and the process could take one or two months,” he noted, highlighting the potentially lengthy and uncertain nature of the proceedings.
This isn’t simply about one leaked phone call, it is about power consolidation. It begs the question of whether, in a country repeatedly punctuated by coups and judicial interventions, the promise of a democratically elected leader can ever overcome the deeper structures of unelected power. And here’s the insidious part: those structures actively manufacture the crises they then claim to be solving.
In a worst-case scenario, Pheu Thai may be forced to reinstate the Bhumjaithai Party and agree to support its leader, Anutin Charnvirakul, as the prime minister.
To truly understand this moment, it’s crucial to recall Thailand’s turbulent recent history. The 2014 coup, led by then-General Prayut Chan-o-cha, ushered in a period of military rule that profoundly reshaped the political landscape. But even before Prayut, the echoes of the 2006 coup against Thaksin Shinawatra, Paetongtarn’s father, reverberate. That coup, ostensibly triggered by corruption allegations, set a precedent for extra-constitutional interventions that continues to haunt Thai politics. Even after the return to civilian governance, the military-backed constitution, with its appointed Senate, continues to exert significant influence. The fact that 36 senators — appointed, not elected — can trigger a process that threatens a prime minister underscores this ongoing tension.
Furthermore, the judiciary’s role in Thai politics cannot be overstated. As scholars like Duncan McCargo have meticulously documented, the courts have frequently served as political actors, interpreting the constitution in ways that have consistently favored conservative elements and undermined elected governments. Consider the dissolution of the Thai Raksa Chart party in 2019 for nominating a member of the royal family as their prime ministerial candidate — a decision widely seen as politically motivated. The Constitutional Court’s decision on Tuesday, therefore, isn’t simply a legal judgment; it’s a deeply political act that will shape Thailand’s future.
This situation echoes a broader trend observed in many democracies: the weaponization of ethics accusations and legal challenges to undermine political opponents. But in Thailand, this trend is amplified by the existence of powerful, unelected institutions actively seeking to maintain their grip on power. The problem isn’t necessarily that politicians are ethical, but that systems are designed, often intentionally, to use even small violations, perceived or otherwise, to derail entire administrations. It creates a dynamic where policy is constantly secondary to the threat of investigations and legal challenges.
The fallout from this saga will ripple far beyond Ms. Paetongtarn’s political future. The stability of the coalition government is at stake. The potential for street protests, as the Bangkok Post notes, is high, raising the specter of further instability. This isn’t just about who leads Thailand, it’s about the very nature of Thai governance: whether elected leaders are truly in control, or whether they are merely tenants on land owned by other, more powerful, forces. And perhaps the most unsettling question is not whether this government will survive, but whether any elected government in Thailand can ever truly thrive under the current rules of the game.
