Dissolution only deepens political divide
The Prayut Chan-o-cha government does not want street protests. The majority of people say they will not join political rallies either because they fear for their safety and believe they would instigate disorder, according to a recent Nida poll.
Unfortunately, the dissolution of the Future Forward Party and 10-year ban on its executives which underlines the ruling establishment’s game of political absolutism could push the country along that undesirable path.
It’s not just that millions of voters suddenly found themselves without representation. It’s also the feeling of being cheated, a bitterness and a growing desperation that are fuelling a collective rage.
With such widespread discontent on the ground, it will take only a few missteps by the government to ignite unrest.
The Constitutional Court’s decision, and rationale used, to disband the FFP last Friday has sparked intense debate.
Are political parties considered legal entities under the public or private law? Why should the 191.2 million baht lent to the party by its leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit be interpreted as illegitimate? Should a loan with low or no interest be judged as suspicious behaviour? Should it be a matter between the lender and borrower instead?
In the wake of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, a group of 36 law lecturers from Thammasat University issued a public statement delineating their dissent. Students from several universities also called for rallies throughout this week to demand genuine “democracy”.
Judging from online comments and hashtags, the ruling has radicalised Thai politics to another level. Emotions are running high. Political polarisation has once again risen to the fore. This time the fault line mainly runs between generations, with older people cheering on the ruling regime while the young lament their loss.
What is worrying is that no common ground seems to be in sight. Those who prefer the powers-that-be have their own set of logic while people who root for the FFP subscribe to another. The differences appear irreconcilable.
It’s possible arguments about the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the organic law on political parties in its ruling to disband the FFP will continue with no consensus, going down as yet another case study of how the law and judiciary have become intimately involved in the country’s decade-long political conflicts.
Amid the contention, however, one thing that should be clear is the forced dissolution of political parties has done more to engender conflicts and disenfranchisement than it has to settle them.
A political party is a vehicle for people to participate in democracy. It’s as direct, communicable and identifiable a channel as could be. It is not just a physical space and concrete grouping but also an epitome of ideals and shared values.
To have it disbanded is to kill the yearnings of the people who supported it. It’s as if all of a sudden more than six million people who voted for the FFP have been excluded from governance. While it’s true that FFP MPs can find a new party to attach themselves to, the policies and aspirations that the FFP has stood for as a party will be lost.
That is why a political party should not be ordered to disband except for clear, unquestionable reasons.
At present, there are a dozen clauses allowing the Constitutional Court to order a political party to be dissolved. Some of them are straightforward, such as trying to topple the constitutional monarchy or using the banner to raise profit to be shared among members. Others, however, appear arguable and subject to interpretation.
A political party can be dissolved if it allows non-members to “control, dominate or lead” its activities in ways that deprive the party or its members of independence whether directly or indirectly, for example.
How can this be proved? To what extent can an outsider be involved in a party to qualify as exerting control or leading its activities? Can PM Gen Prayut as a non-member be accused of “controlling” the Palang Pracharath Party?
Another debatable clause is the one involved in the FFP case. The law appears simple. It bars a political party or its executives from accepting money, assets or any benefits that may be obtained illegally.
Should “illegally” be defined in clearer terms? Gambling, money laundering, drug trafficking? Things that most people would agree to be dishonest.
Leaving so much room for interpretation, as in this case where a publicly disclosed lowinterest loan was deemed illegitimate, leads to scepticism about political foul play and tension.
Eventually, a confrontation, no matter how dreaded, will become unavoidable.