The Democrat Party’s decision to take a harder line on the Senate election-fraud case is exposing a potentially costly fault line between its stated commitment to democratic institutions and the political identity of part of its traditional support base.
The political drama unfolded after deputy party leader Radklao Inthawong Suwannakhiri joined an iLaw-led mobilisation in Bangkok on Sept 13, urging the Election Commission (EC) to send the Senate election case to court.
The appearance of the Democrat list-MP appearance alongside figures associated with iLaw and the opposition People’s Party (PP) triggered criticism from conservative supporters, some of whom accused the Democrats of signalling political alignment with the left-wing opposition and activist movement.
The event, organised by the civil-society group iLaw under the banner ‘People Speak Out: Prosecute 229’, brought hundreds of people into the streets ahead of the EC’s decision on the 2024 Senate-election collusion case. Participants called for all 229 people investigated in the case to face legal proceedings. PP leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut and senior party figures also joined the mobilisation.
Ms Radklao’s participation was not merely symbolic. At the Bangkok Art and Culture Centre, she urged the EC to send the case to court, arguing that the commission’s role was not to make a final determination of guilt. She also warned that failure to perform its duties could raise questions under Section 157 of the Criminal Code.
She said the Democrat Party’s position was rooted in confidence in democracy and the importance of the EC as an institution protecting the electoral system.
That position, however, acquired a different political meaning after the EC announced its decision the following day.
In taking part in the Sept 13 rally, Ms Radklao was chastised by right-wing critics as having the ‘right stance but standing in the wrong place’.
On Sept 14, the commission voted to refer 77 people to the Supreme Court’s Election Cases Division for criminal proceedings. The group comprises 26 sitting senators, 36 people eligible to vote in the Senate election and 15 others.
The EC, however, decided not to proceed with allegations concerning political assistance to Senate candidates. Consequently, no political party executives, MPs or political office-holders were referred under those allegations.
The outcome was particularly significant because the original investigation was broader. An EC investigation panel had recommended proceedings against 229 people, including senators and individuals allegedly connected with political networks linked to figures in the ruling Bhumjaithai Party.
iLaw highlighted the discrepancy between that recommendation and the eventual EC decision, particularly the absence of political party figures from the group sent to court.
For the Democrats, the political problem therefore goes beyond whether Ms Radklao attended a particular rally. It concerns what kind of opposition party the Democrats want to be under leader Abhisit Vejjajiva.
The party has historically occupied an important position among conservative and establishment-oriented voters while also presenting itself as a parliamentary, constitutional and rule-of-law party. That combination has become harder to maintain as the political divide has increasingly centred on competing interpretations of democracy, institutional reform and the role of conservative political forces.
The Senate case places those tensions in unusually sharp relief.
The PP has suggested the EC decision was evidence of unequal treatment, particularly because no Bhumjaithai executives, MPs or other political office-holders were referred. Mr Natthaphong has demanded further action against the EC and announced a series of measures, including legal action and a no-confidence motion.
iLaw, a longstanding ally of the PP, has adopted a similarly confrontational position, arguing that the EC’s decision left political figures outside the criminal proceedings despite the earlier investigation. The organisation had specifically campaigned for all 229 suspects to be prosecuted.
Ms Radklao’s decision to stand alongside such groups therefore gave her critics an easy political narrative: that the Democrats were moving closer to the PP and the liberal-democratic movement while distancing themselves from conservative voters, according to an observer.
Such an interpretation does not necessarily follow from her stated position. Her argument was built around institutional accountability rather than support for the PP. Indeed, demanding that allegations be tested through judicial proceedings can be presented as consistent with a rule-of-law position independent of partisan affiliation.
But political symbolism can matter as much as formal policy positions, the observer said.
The phrase circulating among critics – that Ms Radklao had the ‘right stance but stood in the wrong place’ – captures the problem. The criticism does not necessarily dispute opposition to alleged Senate-election irregularities. Instead, it challenges the political company in which that position was expressed.
Conservative commentator Jittakorn Busaba, for example, publicly questioned Ms Radklao’s presence, prompting her to explain that her appearance was symbolic and related to opposition to alleged Senate-election collusion. Mr Jittakorn said she could have made her ‘symbolic’ appearance away from the iLaw rally. This creates a strategic dilemma for the Democrats.
The observer said that if the party moves closer to the PP on issues of electoral integrity, constitutionalism and institutional accountability, it could reinforce its claim to be a principled parliamentary opposition force. It could also distinguish itself from parties participating in the Bhumjaithai-led government.
But such positioning could simultaneously make it more difficult for the Democrats to retain voters who regard the PP and its associated civil-society networks with a high degree of suspicion. The risk is particularly acute if the Democrats are perceived not simply as scrutinising the government but as forming part of a broader political camp identified with the PP.
The problem is compounded by the party’s limited electoral room for manoeuvre, the source said. With the Democrats seeking to rebuild under Mr Abhisit, their political identity is itself part of the electoral contest. A move towards one side of the country’s ideological divide may help clarify its position for some voters while alienating others.
The Senate case could be a test of whether the Democrats can separate institutional accountability from partisan alignment.
Ms Radklao’s appearance demonstrates that the party is willing to challenge the EC over a politically sensitive issue. Her subsequent parliamentary criticism of the commission has reinforced that position. On Sept 16, she again attacked the EC’s performance and questioned its effectiveness in handling electoral investigations.
Whether this strengthens or weakens the Democrats electorally cannot yet be established, the observer said. But the controversy illustrates the increasingly narrow space in which the party is trying to rebuild: criticism of the government may be seen as bringing it closer to the PP politically, while maintaining distance from the PP may require greater sensitivity to the concerns of its conservative constituency.
For the Democrats, the immediate issue is not simply whether to oppose the EC’s handling of the Senate case. It is how to make that opposition unmistakably its own – and prevent a campaign for institutional accountability from being construed as a declaration of political allegiance to another opposition camp.
The Election Commission’s decision to refer 26 sitting senators, 36 Senate voters and 15 other individuals in the Senate election collusion case to the Supreme Court has not brought the controversy to an end.
Instead, the case is entering a new phase, with the Democrat Party seeking to take the fight into the courts and keep open the possibility that the investigation could extend beyond the 77 people referred.
Shortly after the EC announced its decision on Sept 14, the Democrats said it should be seen as the beginning of a process to establish the truth, rather than the end of one.
The party’s legal team met to analyse the decision and agreed to challenge the commission while pushing for the case to be expanded to include possible criminal proceedings.
First, the party will continue monitoring the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) probe and ensure the government does not interfere in its work.
According to the Democrats, the DSI is investigating allegations of criminal association and money laundering linked to the alleged vote-fixing, and the probe should continue.
The party will also monitor reports of possible transfers of DSI officials involved in the case, amid concerns that such moves could remove them from the investigation.
The Democrats have also assembled a legal team to examine possible action against the EC and assist people affected by the alleged collusion. The team includes former MP Charnchai Isarasenarak, who is taking a leading role in the legal fight.
According to the party, the number of people referred to court is significantly lower than the 229 identified by the EC’s 26th inquiry panel as having grounds for further action. The party has therefore called on the EC to submit the full investigation file to the Supreme Court.
Critics of the EC want deeper evidence examined, including alleged recordings involving politicians, evidence of vote mobilisation and financial trails.
They argue that such evidence could show whether the alleged operation went beyond individual candidates and involved political figures or parties.
Critics also point to what they describe as a coordinated pattern, with many of those involved belonging to the same political party and allegedly taking part in similar and systematic actions.
They accuse the EC of treating the allegations as separate offences involving individuals rather than examining who may have organised or directed the wider operation.
Mr Charnchai is pinning his hopes on the Supreme Court’s powers in election cases.
He said the court can examine evidence and pursue links to other people allegedly involved in the scheme, rather than being confined to the 77 names submitted by the EC.
If the court finds evidence implicating others, the case may not end with the 77 individuals. This is where the Democrats hope the court process could open up the investigation.
The Democrat Party’s legal team is also looking at possible action against the EC itself.
Political activist Thaikorn Polsuwan, who is working with Mr Charnchai’s team, said Mr Charnchai is preparing to invoke Section 69 of the organic law governing the EC as a main legal avenue against the commissioners.
According to Mr Thaikorn, Section 69 could provide a more direct route than Section 157 of the Criminal Code, under which it would be necessary to prove that officials deliberately failed to perform their duties or abused their authority.
He said Section 69 would also give the court greater scope to call for evidence and examine whether the commissioners’ conduct was linked to other people allegedly involved in the case.
Mr Thaikorn said the Senate case was about more than the legal fate of the 77 people referred by the EC; it also concerned the Bhumjaithai Party’s hold on power.
However, he does not believe the case would necessarily threaten Bhumjaithai even if the Supreme Court rules against a large number of the so-called blue senators.
He said key Bhumjaithai figures remain confident the party can maintain its position because, in his view, the country’s ‘deep state’ has no obvious alternative to Prime Minister and Bhumjaithai leader Anutin Charnvirakul.
‘All sides have to endure this and try their best to keep the parliamentary system going rather than allowing the anti-blue movement to spill onto the streets,’ Mr Thaikorn said.
‘That kind of development could create complications that neither the government nor the opposition wants.’