To add a bit more to the last entry, and to attempt to answer Aaron’s question about what the CNS (military government) hoped to gain from the Constitutional Court’s ruling, let me elaborate:

Why the CNS wanted the court to hear the case

The CNS’s pretext for the September 19 coup was that carport politicians (mainly Thaksin and the Thai Rak Thai party) had undermined democracy in Thailand through their shady dealings, manipulation of elections, etc.  The CNS said their purpose for usurping the democratically-elected government was to set democracy back on course in Thailand.

The Constitutional Court’s investigation into the April 2, 2006 election was expressly at the request of the CNS, and looked at both Thai Rak Thai, the Democrat party, as well as two minor parties.

Regardless of the outcome of the court, the aims of CNS, if not explicitly stated, were essentially to get Thaksin out of power and then, once democracy was restored, to partner with popular politicians (presumably other Thai Rak Thai leaders but not ones loyal to Thaksin) to form a new political party that would maintain/protect their interests.  It helps to know that Thai Rak Thai was itself an amalgamation of several other smaller parties that had united behind Thaksin’s charismatic persona. 

By being part of the next administration, the CNS would protect itself from retaliation.  The down side is that it would be a step back to the days of semi-military regimes, similar to the coup in 1991.

By asking the Constitutional Court to look into this matter, it was in essence the CNS’s play to show some respect for rule of law.  We will ask the court to look into it, and will respect their decisions, was the message.

If the court found the politicians and political parties guilty, it would add some legitimacy to the coup but wouldn’t necessarily be good for Thai democracy, leaving the country without any political parties or senior politicians.

If the court found the politicians and political parties innocent, it would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the legal process because it was the Constitutional Court itself that had originally declared the April 2 elections tainted and would undermine the legitimacy of the CNS.

Of course, what happened was somewhere between the two: Thai Rak Thai and the TRT leadership was found guilty, but the Democrats were not.

The effects of this ruling

Before the May 30 ruling by the court, a Thai Rak Thai executive was accused of leaking “possibly true” verdicts that both parties would be disbanded.  The message was intended to warn Thai Rak Thai supporters who still have faith in Thaksin that the party would be disbanded regardless of the legal process.

The Nation newspaper described the supposed leak as being “like a bomb thrown at the junta and the Constitutional Tribunal.  The underlying message is that a verdict that disbands only Thai Rak Thai would suggest to its supports and the public that the judges had been swayed to change their mind at the last minute in favor of its opponents.”

Furthermore, a ruling against Thai Rak Thai would suggest that the Democrats were allies of the CNS, fueling anti-CNS rallies which have the potential to gain momentum.

The Constitutional Court ruled that Thai Rak Thai was guilty and is to be disbanded, and the Democrats were found not guilty.  This creates the potential for anti-CNS rallies to gain momentum while also making it harder for the CNS leaders to plan to enter politics with some former Thai Rak Thai leaders as all 111 of them have been banned from politics for five years.

Was the judgment legally sound?

Political analysis being discussed here in Thailand generally agrees that the legal process used by the court was very sound.  In taking so many hours to read out the case, they demonstrated a very transparent thought process that had carefully considered the arguments from all angles.  In general, it is also agreed that the legal principles used to determine guilt were rightly based on pre-coup law, since the fraud and other crimes occurred before the coup.

However, there is a certain amount of unease over what is perceived as determining the punishment (dissolution of the party and five year ban on executives) based on post-coup law dictated by the CNS.  In this case, the punishment is being retroactively applied.  Additionally, of the nine judges, three are on record as disagreeing with the punishment.

Where do we go from here?

This leaves the CNS somewhat vindicated from the stand point of the guilt of Thai Rak Thai and its leaders being confirmed by the court, but it also leave the CNS with a mass of potentially explosive Thai Rak Thai supporters and no former Thai Rak Thai leaders to partner with in creating the next government; the Democrats are the strongest (only!) party left standing and could do very well in the next elections but will not be trusted by many former Thai Rak Thai supporters; and some leaders of Thai Rak Thai are saying that the fight isn’t over yet, suggesting that the party’s adherents will reform under the new name “Thai Rak Thai Group”.

Leaving the question, “So now what?”  Stay tuned, dear readers.  Hopefully I’ll be able to return to lighter topics soon.