Listen to this story |
The Thai Constitutional Court’s decision to dissolve the Move Forward Party (MFP) yesterday, on August 7th, is watched beyond the country’s shores. That much is obvious from the controversial lunch meeting held between diplomats from eighteen (mostly western) countries and Mr. Pita Limjaroenrat, MFP’s chief advisor and Thailand’s thwarted former prime minister-elect, held just a few days before the verdict.
International reactions to this verdict will be pouring in soon, if they have not already. The United States has already expressed deep concern over the Constitutional Court’s decision. Before the verdict, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the UN Special Rapporteur on peaceful assembly and association, had already expressed their concerns over this case.
Apart from the expected domestic political impacts, which have been widely explored in the events leading up to August 7th (for example, see here and here), the verdict also has important consequences for Thailand internationally. As the October elections for the UN Human Rights Council 2025-2027 term loom and with Thailand in the final stages of its campaign, doubts are cast on Thailand’s diplomatic standing in light of this verdict.
These concerns are not unfounded nor new. While the human rights track record of countries within the Human Rights Council is not pristine by any means, it nevertheless gives off a bad impression for countries to endorse candidatures of countries with human rights concerns—or worse, of a regime that came to power through a coup. For this reason, Thailand already lost a bid for the Human Rights Council in 2014, after the coup that took place earlier that year that drew significant international criticism. Furthermore, in what can only be described as a national embarrassment, Thailand’s bid for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2017-18 was unsuccessful; the elections were held when the country was still led by the generals who staged the military coup in May 2014. (Thailand failed with a meager 55 out of 193 votes in its favor, despite Kazakhstan being its sole competitor.) Despite Thailand’s efforts to present itself as a reliable partner in global diplomacy, the fallout from the coup ultimately ended its campaign efforts.
Nor can one forget Thailand’s attempt to secure the UN Secretary-General position in 2006, which was also met with abject failure due in part to the military coup that same year. Despite the strong candidacy of former Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, Thailand’s hopes were foiled by the political unrest and coup, which raised many eyebrows among UN Member States about the country’s democratic credentials and stability. While there may be multiple factors for the failure, the backdrop of political uncertainty certainly made it more difficult for Thailand to garner the widespread support needed for such a high-profile role.
This present verdict will also be a backslide for the country economically, particularly for Prime Minister Srettha’s government, whose chief objective is attracting trade and foreign investment to boost the economy. Political instability in Thailand has historically significantly hindered the country’s economic growth, with frequent changes in government creating an unpredictable business environment and political protests paralyzing key economic areas such as tourism. Such instability has undermined investor confidence and disrupted long-term economic planning, making it challenging to implement consistent and effective policies. Furthermore, the lack of continuity in leadership has stalled crucial economic reforms and infrastructure projects, further impeding growth. As a result, Thailand has struggled to transition from middle-income status to a high-income economy, as persistent political turmoil creates barriers to sustained economic development and modernization.
The economic impact of Thailand’s political instability is clearly seen in its free trade agreement negotiations: the European Union, for example, suspended negotiations with Thailand following the 2014 military coup due to significant concerns about the implications of the junta’s rule on democratic principles and human rights. The EU, which places a strong emphasis on democracy and human rights in its trade agreements, viewed the coup as a serious breach of such norms and called for a return to democratic processes. Since negotiations resumed in 2023, Srettha’s government is unsurprisingly hard-pressed by the EU to bolster democratic institutions in these negotiations, and will have to answer for this verdict.
Of course, there are many factors that go into international negotiations, be it on trade or vote-swapping; democracy and human rights are just a few of them. But perceptions matter. While this verdict will not have the same impact as the 2014 coup in terms of international backlash, it nevertheless highlights the intricate intersection of Thailand’s domestic political difficulties and international diplomacy that the country must navigate. Try as our leaders and top diplomats may, the fact of the matter is that Thailand cannot have the best of both worlds. We cannot reject accepted international norms and at the same time expect to enjoy the same standing in the international community. We hold no leverage, economic or otherwise, that can influence other countries to vote for us. For Thailand, what happens at home matters abroad.
Thailand may be democratic in name, but reality is mismatched with reputation. This decision has been a long time coming. It stemmed from a previous petition by the Electoral Commission in March to dissolve MFP, which in turn came from the Constitutional Court’s ruling last January that the party’s campaign to amend Thailand’s lese majeste law was unconstitutional. One cannot forget that MFP’s previous iteration, the Future Forward Party, was also dissolved by the Constitutional Court on a technicality. Indeed, this is just a long line in the list of democratic setbacks that the country has encountered.
But if the past is prologue, then it is not the dissolutions and democratic setbacks that matter, but what comes next. After the Future Forward Party’s dissolution, people headed to the streets to make historic demands. And in the last election, the Move Forward Party defied all expectations to win the most votes. So what matters is that courts can ban parties and people, but they cannot ban ideas. At every inflection point in Thai politics, the people have pushed forward. And, in time, other countries will hear the people making their voices heard in the ballot box again.