Thailand’s recurring democratic regression stems from persistent constitutional manipulation, the deep-rooted entrenchment of conservative elites and the military in key institutions, and a pervasive antidemocratic political culture.

A national referendum on a new constitution, set for February 2, 2025, may be postponed due to ongoing procedural debates between the House of Representatives and the newly-elected Senate. In July’s Senate elections, candidates affiliated with the conservative Bhumjaithai Party secured 123 seats—over 60 percent of the total in the upper chamber. The party is also the third largest in the House of Representatives, giving it significant bargaining power. 

This outcome is a setback for the pro-democracy faction led by the People’s Party (formerly known as the Move Forward Party) with fewer than 40 of the 200 elected senators identifying as members of the “New Breeds,” a pro-liberalism group advocating for a rewrite of the 2017 constitution. The new Senate is unlikely to exhibit the same predictability as those that preceded it.

Amid Thailand’s political challenges, the United States has an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to democratization, strengthening ties with a key Indo-Pacific ally. By fostering parliamentary exchanges and addressing skepticism rooted in Cold War-era perceptions among elites, Washington can build trust and support Thailand’s reform efforts toward more stable and inclusive governance.

Why Democratic Reforms Struggle Under Military Rule

Thailand’s constitutional framework has been deliberately structured to prevent a stable democratic system. The political unrest of “Black May” in 1992 and the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis triggered major constitutional reforms aimed at establishing civilian-led governance and a stronger party system. This led to the 1997 Constitution, which enhanced civil rights protections and introduced institutions focused on anti-corruption and civil liberties, most notably the Constitutional Court.

The 1997 Constitution, widely hailed as Thailand’s most democratic, became part of the problem. Over time, it became highly politicized, with executive power centralized under Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, which conservative elites, the military, and monarchy saw as a threat. To preserve their status quo, the 2007 and 2017 constitutions were designed to limit elected officials’ power, repurposing institutions from the 1997 Constitution, including the Constitutional Court, to reinforce elite control.

The 2017 Constitution, for instance, grants the Senate, which was then military-appointed, significant influence in selecting the prime minister, ensuring that the conservative elites endure beyond elections. This structure prevents even popularly elected governments from governing effectively without military consent. Furthermore, the provisions make it nearly impossible for any single party to gain a lower-house majority, keeping the military as the ultimate power broker. 

Despite the newly elected senators in July, under the 2017 Constitution, the public had no role in electing the senators. Instead, individuals had to apply for a senate seat from one of 20 civil and professional categories, such as farmers, lawyers, women, and ethnic minorities, with only 46,000 applicants—less than 1% of the population. Because of this, more than half of the new 200 senators have ties with Bhumjaithai, a party that was part of the pervious military-backed government. 

A party that prioritizes consolidating power locally and pro-monarchy orientation, its leader Anutin Charnvirakul, has congenial relationships with the military and conservative elites, allowing them to retain their influence in key institutions and political maneuvering.

Thailand’s political culture also harbors deep distrust toward democratic reforms. The military, monarchy, and traditional elites view electoral democracy as a threat to their control. They see themselves as guardians of national stability, often viewing the largely rural, populist electorate as unprepared for informed political participation. This paternalistic view has fueled repeated military coups to dismantle democratic governments whenever they challenge the status quo, enabling elites to safeguard their power and shape politics to their advantage.

Judicial Activism and the Power of Unelected Agencies

A key feature of Thailand’s authoritarian shift is the influence of unelected agencies, including the Election Commission, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and the Constitutional Court. Since the 2006 coup, the judiciary has become increasingly politicized through ideological appointments and legal-military integration, despite its intended apolitical role. This shift has led to frequent interventions in political disputes undermining elected officials, most recently resulting in the dissolution of progressive political parties.

This judicial activism was exemplified by the 2008 dissolution of the pro-Thaksin People’s Power Party on legal grounds linked to corruption, effectively removing the ruling party from power without a coup. Similarly, the Constitutional Court’s decision to remove Yingluck Shinawatra from office in 2014 on grounds of alleged corruption further highlights the judiciary’s role in undermining democracy. 

In 2020, the court ordered the dissolution of the Future Forward Party and barred its leader, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, from participating in politics. A similar fate awaited Pita Limjaroenrat, whose Move Forward Party won the most votes and seats in the lower house during the 2023 general election. However, Pita’s case was even more blatant: the Senate blocked his path to becoming prime minister and then the court banned him from politics and dissolved the Move Forward Party. 

Forging a Path Forward for Democratic Reforms

The political elite and military must acknowledge the role of elected institutions in governance. Continued meddling through the Senate and unelected agencies, as set by previous constitutions, erodes public trust and perpetuates instability, hindering Thailand’s ability to attract foreign investment amid regional competition.

Although the current Senate cannot participate in the selection of prime minister, it still holds significant influence, including endorsing nominations for independent agencies and approving constitutional amendments.

Thailand’s recent political history has been marked by unpredictable shifts, driven by significant societal changes, as demonstrated by the 2023 election. Opposition forces in both the government and the public have grown stronger, fueled by perceptions of the regime’s illegitimate autocratization. The 2014 “promissory coup” failed to fulfill its promise of restoring democracy.

Bridging U.S.-Thai Relations: Realigning US Commitment to Thailand’s Democratization

Amid Thailand’s intricate political landscape, cycle of political crisis, and geopolitical competition in the Indo-Pacific, Washington must not hesitate in supporting democracy and should underscore its enduring value. Support for Thailand’s democratization not only affirms the United States’ commitment to democratic governance but also deepens the bilateral relationship in substantive ways. 

The United States should explore government-to-government exchanges with Thai parliamentarians to expand Thailand’s understanding of democratic and legislative norms and practices. The U.S.-Thai Alliance Caucus serves as a strong example to strive for greater public visibility while also expanding its focus to include democratization efforts. A relevant example is the current Thai ambassador, Suriya Chindawongse, and his engagements with members of the U.S. Congress. The goal of these engagements is to create a platform for dialogue with Thai institutions, serving as a bridge between Thai officials and democracy advocates, allowing the United States to moderate and understand both perspectives in pursuit of providing reassurance. 

Washington’s deep involvement in the Cold War has fostered persistent skepticism in Thailand, especially among the conservative Thai elites who once collaborated closely with the United States. Resultantly, Thai military and elites remain wary of U.S. intentions. To address this ingrained skepticism, the United States must reshape perceptions among these elites, emphasizing that its current commitment to supporting democracy is genuine and distinct from Cold War-era interventionism and double standards. This requires a comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to counter outdated views of U.S. interference and to foster trust in its democratization efforts.

With Thailand’s political system at a crossroads, the continued dominance of the military and conservative elites will only perpetuate instability and hinder genuine democratic reforms. The country needs to reform institutional structures that enable the military and elites to hold disproportionate power. The United States can be a crucial partner in this effort, expanding beyond its traditional cooperation in economic, security, and defense issues to promoting democratic development. Beginning this effort now can gradually expand the base of conservative elites open to change, ultimately encouraging more resistant conservative groups within the government to support reform.

Narupat Rattanakit is a research intern with the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.