The thin lines dividing “want to”, “need to” and “should” are often clear, but they have never been more glaring for the latest political party dissolved by the Constitutional Court.
Move Forward, or whatever name it will go by from now, always “wants to” amend Article 112. This defiant stand has been its main characteristic from Day One and was reiterated by key party members only hours before the Constitutional Court verdict.
So much has been said about this policy, and the debate is sounding virtually like a broken record. The proponents will always say the same things and so will the opponents.
What Move Forward’s reincarnation “needs to” do is realise that the idealistic defiance is legally impossible. That’s what the Constitutional Court told Thailand on Wednesday. Such realisation is not acceptance of defeat; it’s political, legal and cultural pragmatism.
Such realisation is not an ideological about-face. It’s like atheists settling for living in a world where the majority others don’t think like them. They can continue to be non-believers, and yet that cannot prevent them from being “good” in their own way without affecting others.
“Should” is easy. One poll after another has told Move Forward what Thais wants it to do. The populace wants it to keep monitoring government performances and fight state corruption tooth and nail, and that’s it.
A new name and re-registration are a formality. Already, the party’s insiders and supporters are saying that the dissolution will just make the ideology grow. The next election will even convince them that they have been on the “right” path.
This is where “want to” and “need to” will clash. While the former can be buoyed by electoral results, the latter will have the upper hand, because the Constitutional Court ruling practically underlines what can and can’t be done.
To achieve what it wants, the reincarnation of Move Forward will have to revamp the Constitutional Court or drastically alter the concept of why the institution is necessary. That is a very long shot, requiring a supportive Senate and involving risks of clashing ferociously with the conservatives.
Whatever is left after the party dissolution probably will have something bigger to worry about, however.
The verdict all but deactivated the second generation of Move Forward hierarchy, after the likes of Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and Piyabutr Saengkanokkul were made to play peripheral politics with the dissolution of the Future Forward Party.
Wednesday’s ruling means the future party will have to rely a lot on people who are younger, probably prone to more mistakes. This is a group who will have to compete with the seasoned conservatives and the Pheu Thai Party, whose popularity has taken a hit but it still has considerable time left as a government.
Barring an “accident”, Pheu Thai has three more years to turn things around. The new party can choose to be worried about that, or it can assume that three more years will work to its advantage, aggravating the negative political effect of being the incumbent in addition to the perception that Pheu Thai had betrayed an ideology.
Pheu Thai, meanwhile, will have to continue second-guessing the conservatives. How the latter feels about Move Forward’s reincarnation will not be clear in a matter weeks or even months. The ruling party is “needed” because Move Forward is considered a bigger threat, and Pheu Thai certainly hopes the fragile equilibrium does not significantly change.
As we have witnessed, what Move Forward “wants” not only drove Pheu Thai toward the conservatives (or give the older party an excuse to do so), but it has also led to the party dissolution which may ironically strengthen the conservatives’ hand.
And the reincarnation can be forgiven for feeling ambivalent about what it “needs” to do now. Being pragmatic will not only take away the biggest selling point, one which won them the 2023 election, but also may even be considered too late.
In other words, it’s highly doubtful that being pragmatic would restore the frayed relationship with Pheu Thai. As for the conservatives, working together is impossible.
Foreign support? It can be just an encouragement that is anything but impactful. Just ask Pheu Thai, whose return to power as a lot to do with the conservatives and very little to do with backing from overseas, be it governments or activists.
Maybe the best choice for “technically-dissolved” Move Forward is doing what it “should” and then seeing what happens. That such a scenario will unlikely happen does not mean it’s irrational.
Flash-in-the-pan politics can boost a party one day and bring it down the next. It’s too bad that slow-but-sure politics which involves the conventional principle of helping the poor put food on the table is not as trendy nowadays.
This does not mean that Move Forward intentionally plays flash-in-the-pan politics. It means certain ideology can be attractive, then troublesome and continuously warrant reconsideration in terms of worthiness and mass opinions.
Just check out what is happening in the United Kingdom. America is also experiencing divisive ideological upheavals. The line between right and wrong or between being a hero and a villain can be very thin.
There is a word used to describe being stuck with the same ideology no matter what. That word is “conservative”.
Move Forward politicians have two choices then. Either they consider themselves to be on the right course and continue defiantly as before, probably gaining more popularity in the process but also risking a devastating result.
Or they keep potentially troublesome ideology to themselves and “serve” the people in the most original sense of the word.
