Lawfare is back again

Thai politics is poised for another period of turmoil as the Election Commission (EC) has accepted a petition against the ruling Pheu Thai Party and five coalition partners, accusing them of allowing Thaksin Shinawatra to exert influence over their internal affairs.
The petition was filed with the EC by several individuals and political activists, including Warong Dechgitvigrom, chairman of the Thai Pakdee Party; Ruangkrai Leekitwattana of the Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP); and Noppharut Worachitwutthikun, a former key leader of the Phirap Khao 2006 political group.
The allegations focus on a meeting of key figures from Pheu Thai and four coalition parties — Bhumjaithai, United Thai Nation (UTN), Palang Pracharath (PPRP), Chartthaipattana, and Prachachat — held on Aug 14 at Thaksin’s Chan Song La residence.
The meeting was convened to discuss the nomination of a new prime minister following the Constitutional Court’s removal of Srettha Thavisin from office due to his appointment of Pichit Chuenban, an ex-convict, to the cabinet.
Initially, the group proposed Chaikasem Nitisiri as their candidate, but later switched to Paetongtarn Shinawatra, Thaksin’s daughter.
If the EC finds merit in the complaints, it will refer the case to the court for a ruling on the dissolution of the parties involved.
While the Pheu Thai Party dismisses the potential dissolution as mere political manoeuvring, calling it a “dangerous game,” some analysts are pessimistic about the party’s future.
They cite Thaksin’s behaviour following his release from hospital — his media interviews concerning the cabinet’s formation, comments on his daughter Paetongtarn’s performance, and his high-profile “vision talk” on Aug 22 — as well as the Aug 14 meeting at Chan Song La involving coalition leaders after Mr Srettha’s ouster from the top job.
Under the 2017 constitution, parties found to be under external influence can face severe penalties, including dissolution.
The big question is whether such extreme measures, now seen as “lawfare,” truly benefit Thai democracy. Is the so-called “return to square one” a worthy sacrifice for the country’s political development?
Over the past 20 years, major parties, including Thai Rak Thai and Palang Prachachon, have been dissolved, only to come back stronger.
In the cases of the Future Forward Party and Move Forward Party, supporters viewed this lawfare as a dirty trick, which only heightened public sympathy for the dissolved progressive parties.
Such drastic measures deprive a generation of young and capable politicians of the opportunity to contribute to the country’s development.
Moreover, a number of legal experts have challenged the court’s rulings, particularly concerning the Move Forward Party’s bid to amend Section 112.
Public scepticism towards the role of independent bodies, including the EC and the court, has clearly grown, as lawfare has damaged their credibility.
It goes without saying that the impending upheaval will jeopardise Thai politics, deepening existing conflicts.
While all parties should be held accountable, penalties should target individual party leaders or executives rather than intervening in the institutional integrity of parties and their fate as a whole through the contentious use of lawfare.