Shoring up the monarchy in Thailand

Back in 1989, I wrote a seminar paper on the problems with legislating against “offence”, including the risk to free speech. I quoted the following line from Bertrand Russell (from Marriage and Morals, originally published in 1929): “Homosexuality between men, though not between women, is illegal in England, and it would be very difficult to present any argument for a change of the law in this respect which would not itself be illegal on the ground of obscenity.”

I didn’t use the quote again, but I had it in mind years later when I wrote this story for Crikey on the over-reach of legislation against child pornography. As I put it:

[T]he striking thing about the child porn debate is that its claims are impossible to verify: “experts” can make assertions about the size of the problem without fear of contradiction, because any attempt to search for offending material or discover how available it is would run the risk of offending against the very laws that the claims are trying to justify.

… It’s a law enforce­ment officer’s ultimate dream: a law that effectively criminalises attempts to question it.

And now there’s another example. Thailand’s constitutional court has ruled not just that the country’s lèse-majesté law prohibits attacks on the monarchy, but that any proposal to change that law is itself an attack on the monarchy and therefore unconstitutional. And since such a change is advocated by Move Forward, the party that topped the poll at last year’s Thai election, the ruling could be used to dissolve it and ban its leaders from politics.

You may remember that Move Forward’s attempt to form a government was frustrated by the military representatives in the unelected Senate, and that the stalemate was resolved when the second-largest opposition party, Pheu Thai, reached an agreement with the military to form a coalition government. While the rules of democracy were respected, the continuing popularity of Move Forward represented a clear threat to the military’s position.

So, as is their habit, the generals turned to the courts to try to disqualify it. In one case last week party leader Pita Limjaroenrat was acquitted of charges of violating electoral laws. But this week the court effectively ruled that Move Forward’s program amounts to, in the BBC’s words, “an attempt to overthrow the entire political system in Thailand.” By the court’s logic, any disagreement with its decision is itself illegal.

Far too many countries already get away with criminalising the peaceful advocacy of constitutional change – be it secession, republicanism, or even just co-existence with neighbors. Constitutions protect important values, but for democracy to survive it must always be possible to argue for change and to try to convince the majority. Making that argument illegal just ensures that change when it comes will be revolutionary rather than incremental.

It makes sense that the Thai establishment would be nervous about Move Forward’s appeal, especially now that it is the only serious opposition force. But this piece of over-reach is most unlikely to help. Banning parties does not have a good record of success: two previous incarnations of Pheu Thai were banned by the military, but each time its supporters regrouped under a different name.

The most likely outcome is that it will radicalise Move Forward and its supporters, who instead of just wanting to reform the monarchy will now aim for its abolition. The prestige of the monarchy has already declined since the death of the much-respected king Bhumibol in 2016, and the insecurity of the establishment has led to increased use of the lèse-majesté law. Now, with gradual change pushed off the table, Thailand’s youth will gravitate more towards republicanism.

That in turn will put Pheu Thai in an uncomfortable position, with its relationship with the military set to come under increasing strain.