Thailand’s Monarchy Remains, While Democracy Struggles Under Shadowy Control
The question isn’t simply whether Thailand will grant amnesty for lèse majesté offenses. It’s whether Thailand can. According to Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, secretary-general of the Progressive Movement, the answer isn’t the people. It’s an unseen power, a Praetorian Guard for the monarchy, pulling the strings. They dictate which laws MPs are “permitted” to support, and which they must abandon for political survival. He lays it out starkly on Facebook: politicians are hesitant to challenge the establishment because they fear losing their positions, implying that power in Thailand rests less with democratic legitimacy than with shadowy figures operating behind the scenes — a system where the ballot box is routinely overruled by the threat of a boot.
This isn’t merely political maneuvering. It exposes a deeper crisis of representation, a phenomenon political scientist Benedict Anderson, writing about Southeast Asia, termed “cacique democracy,” where nominally democratic institutions are captured by local elites beholden to external, often opaque, power centers. The fear of reprisal outweighs the mandate to serve the constituents who elected them. As Piyabutr asks, “one of the responsibilities of MPs is to make laws, which raises the question as to who these MPs represent if his assumption is true.' This goes to the heart of democratic governance: if elected officials are beholden to other entities than the electorate, the system is fundamentally compromised.
‘Stop throwing tantrums when things don’t go your way. Change your mindset to be in line with constitutional principles. Don’t see every case as a political case,’ says Thanakorn Wangboonkongchana, a list-MP from the United Thai Nation (UTN) Party.
Thanakorn’s response, accusing Piyabutr of "distorting facts and stirring divisiveness,” is revealing. It frames calls for amnesty as “radicalism,” conflating dissent with instability, a tactic reminiscent of justifications used by authoritarian regimes throughout the 20th century. His justification that lèse majesté is a national security issue mirrors authoritarian logic globally. Criminalizing speech is a proven tool to silence opposition, as seen in Hungary and Turkey. This is a long game of redefining permissible discourse and shrinking the boundaries of political freedom. This reframing is the coup de grâce for any semblance of open political discourse.
Thailand’s political landscape is littered with the wreckage of interrupted democracies and military coups. The 2006 and 2014 coups underscore a pattern of intervention, and the drafting of constitutions by military appointed panels, further entrenches the power of the non-elected. The current constitution, for example, allows the military to appoint Senators who then vote for the Prime Minister. The lèse majesté law, Section 112 of the Criminal Code, has become a potent weapon in this power struggle. Bangkok Post reports, amnesty for its violations is now a sticking point for Thailand’s future. Since the 2014 coup, the use of Section 112 has increased dramatically, targeting not just direct insults to the monarchy but also critical commentary on social and political issues, according to data compiled by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights. This chilling effect creates a climate of self-censorship, further distorting the political landscape.
The amnesty debate exposes the deep fault lines within Thai society. The UTN’s “Promote Peaceful Society Bill” and the Klatham Party’s stance reveal an aversion to challenging the status quo. This aligns with what political scientists like Anek Laothamatas have described as Thailand’s “illiberal democracy,” where elections coexist with severe limitations on civil liberties and a culture of deference to authority. Meanwhile, the People’s Party, led by Rangsiman Rome, pushes for broader amnesty, but faces an uphill battle against entrenched power structures.
The implications extend far beyond Thailand’s borders. The erosion of democratic norms in one country can embolden authoritarian tendencies elsewhere. If elected officials are effectively proxies for unseen powers, democracy becomes a performance, masking a deeper reality of control. And if that control proves durable, it offers a playbook for other nations seeking to cloak authoritarianism in the trappings of popular sovereignty. This situation demands that observers look beyond parliamentary procedures to understand the true sources of authority, the silent veto players, and the quiet coercion that shapes Thai politics. This isn’t simply about a law; it’s about the fundamental right of citizens to hold their elected representatives accountable, without fear of repercussions. The fight for amnesty for lèse majesté offenses is, at its core, a fight for the soul of Thai democracy and a warning signal for the global struggle between democracy and veiled authoritarianism.
