Paetongtarn Shinawatra, daughter of former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was dealt a significant political blow. She was ousted from her position as the nation’s prime minister. The constitutional court’s six-three decision to remove her from office has raised alarms about the stability and integrity of Thailand’s fledgling democracy. This dismissal comes just as the lens on her approval ratings is sharpening. It comes on the heels of her ethical violation claims from her controversial call with Cambodia’s former dictator, Hun Sen.
According to a June poll by the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), Paetongtarn’s approval rating is a secret-marking 9.2 percent. This low number only serves to underscore the depth of anger pervading the country. The court’s ruling not only resulted in her dismissal but imposed a 10-year ban from politics, effectively sidelining her and her party despite their previous electoral success. This case has reignited discussions about the extraordinary power wielded by Thailand’s constitutional court and its implications for the country’s democratic processes.
Implications of the Court’s Decision
The constitutional court’s ruling to dissolve Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s party, following allegations that it attempted to topple Thailand’s constitutional monarchy, underscores the court’s contentious role in Thai politics. As critics of the court have pointed out, the court consistently performs this role as a super-legislator for the conservative establishment. They argue it leaves no space for reformist politicians and limits democratic advancement.
Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang, a legal expert, stated, “There are nine judges on the bench, and these nine judges can dismiss a democratically elected prime minister very easily.” This is deeply troubling to all who care about the capacity of our judiciary to function free from the political winds. The whole thing points to a deeply worrisome trend of volatility as countless Thais still take to the streets to voice dissatisfaction with their democratic institutions.
“But if the Thai court continues to exercise its power in such an arbitrary manner, one day people are going to stand up and say, ‘we’re going to abolish the court altogether’.” – Khemthong
To many, it has looked like the court is trying to weaponize its authority against popular candidates such as Paetongtarn Shinawatra. Her party’s political fortunes evaporated, even following an unmistakable electoral mandate—a landslide victory. This deeply concerning trend demonstrates how judicial rule-making can trump the will of the voters.
Public Discontent and Loss of Faith in Democracy
The case of Paetongtarn Shinawatra has added oil to the fire of worries about public trust in democracy. Many ordinary Thais express frustration at the ongoing political turmoil and perceive that their voices are being silenced by judicial decisions. This argument is even stronger when we acknowledge the prevailing political environment. Since its founding in 1997, Thailand’s constitutional court has dissolved political parties more than a hundred times.
This leaves important and perhaps fatal questions regarding the future of democracy in Thailand. Citizens are growing more distrustful of a system that appears rigged to serve the will of an elite rather than the broad public will. As the public becomes increasingly dissatisfied, the risk of social disorder rises.
“That’s the reason why you really need the court, because they can bring change in a very progressive way. But when it comes to political disputes, the court fails almost completely.” – Khemthong
These sentiments resonate with many who believe that while courts may serve essential roles in rights and liberties cases, their efficacy falters within political contexts. This duality emphasizes the uneasy tension between preserving institutional judicial power and dominance, and guaranteeing democratic accountability and representation.
The Future of Thailand’s Political Landscape
The political implications of Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s dismissal go much deeper than her own political fortunes. Notably, they point to issues that call into question the future trajectory of Thailand’s political landscape. She leads this extraordinary period with great purpose and strength. Her case illustrates the bigger systemic issues that are even now undermining Thai democracy.
With heightened scrutiny on how the constitutional court operates, many observers are calling for reform or even a reevaluation of its powers. This precariousness serves as a powerful reminder that democracy is never a finished project. It requires something else to flourish — active engagement from citizens and institutions alike.
“A constitutional court is quite a vital component in many modern democracies around the world, and there’s some use for it,” – Khemthong
