After losing ground on Section 112, also known as the lese majeste law, the opposition People’s Party (PP) is seeking to reinforce its reformist credentials by focusing on charter change, while critics raise their eyebrows at Pheu Thai Party leader Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s ‘comeback’ speech as they wait for her replacement to be unveiled.
PP, once hailed as a powerful engine for reformist change in Thai politics, now finds itself cornered with only one remaining flagship agenda: charter amendment.
Other reformist priorities, most notably the push to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code have stalled under immense resistance from both the establishment and rival political factions. This leaves constitutional reform as the party’s final battleground to prove its relevance and deliver on its promises to supporters.
When PP rose to prominence, it carried the hopes of a broad coalition of younger voters, pro-democracy activists, and disillusioned urban middle-class Thais. Their mandate was clear: confront Thailand’s entrenched structures of power and push through bold reforms.
The campaign platform centred on three pillars: reforming the constitution to dismantle authoritarian legacies, rectifying Section 112 and restructuring the economy to be more equitable.
Initially, the momentum was strong. The party dominated conversations around democracy, human rights, and political reform. Its youthful leadership and progressive policies differentiated it from traditional power brokers.
However, once in parliament, the realities of coalition politics, institutional checks and resistance from conservative actors blunted much of its reformist edge.
The clearest sign of such an impasse came with the attempt to rewrite Section 112. The lèse majesté law has long been one of the most sensitive issues in Thai politics. It criminalises perceived insults against the monarchy with severe penalties, making any effort to amend it an almost impossible endeavour within the current political climate.
PP championed changes, arguing that the law has been abused for political purposes and weaponised to silence dissent. But resistance came from all sides: conservative politicians labelled the move as an attack on the monarchy, several parties distanced themselves for fear of alienating their voter base, and even some civil society groups expressed concern about the risks of pursuing the reform head-on.
The result was predictable. Parliamentary votes on the issue failed to gain traction, with overwhelming rejections from both the House and the Senate. Publicly, PP’s leadership insisted it was worth the effort to highlight the issue. Privately, many acknowledged it was a fight they could not win, according to a political source.
Against this backdrop, constitutional reform remains the party’s last viable avenue for influence. Unlike Section 112, charter amendment enjoys broader legitimacy as a political agenda.
Thailand’s current constitution, drafted under military rule, has long been criticised for entrenching unelected powers, particularly through the appointed Senate and mechanisms that allow military-linked figures to retain influence over civilian politics.
By focusing on charter reform, PP can still claim to be advancing the democratic cause without alienating centrist or risk-averse allies. The narrative is also easier to sell to the public: a more democratic constitution is the foundation for every other reform. If the rules of the game remain skewed, no government, no matter how reformist, can deliver meaningful change, the source said.
This makes the charter amendment push both a strategic necessity and a symbolic last stand. For PP, it is less about whether they can fully deliver a new constitution — given the hurdles of Senate vetoes and establishment pushback — and more about demonstrating commitment to systemic reform. It is their last chance to claim they fought on behalf of their voters, even if the odds are stacked against them.
Yet the risks of hanging their identity on charter amendment are significant.
First, constitutional reform is a drawn-out process. Even if parliament agrees to establish a Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA), debate over its composition, authority, and procedures could take months, if not years. This timeline does not match the urgency of PP’s need to show results before the next election.
Second, the party faces the risk of being outmanoeuvred. Rival parties such as Pheu Thai and the Bhumjaithai Party (BJT) have also spoken in favour of charter reform, though in more cautious terms. If the larger parties take ownership of the process, the PP may lose its ability to claim the issue as its own. In politics, being first to champion an idea does not always translate into reaping the rewards if others implement it.
Third, there is the danger of disappointment. Supporters who backed the PP for its bold stance on Section 112 may see the charter amendment as a watered-down compromise. If the party is unable to deliver tangible progress, it risks being branded as ineffective — a label that could devastate its appeal to younger voters who demand results, not just rhetoric.
The PP, meanwhile, has grown increasingly wary that big parties will dominate the drafting process.
The main opposition party says it wants the government to work towards maximising public participation in the drafting of a new constitution, saying current proposals from the ruling coalition could allow powerful parties to dominate the whole process.
Parit Wacharasindhu, list-MP and PP spokesman, said the party has already submitted its constitutional amendment proposals and reviewed some of the details of those put forward by Pheu Thai and BJT.
He outlined two concerns: first, the public must be given the highest level of involvement permitted under the Constitutional Court’s ruling, and second, that safeguards are needed to prevent one political camp from monopolising the CDA to be created under Section 256 of the charter.
According to Mr Parit, both the Pheu Thai and BJT models fall short. Pheu Thai proposes direct elections for 200 representatives, who would then be filtered down by parliament. The BJT’s plan relies on a parliamentary screening of applicants, without direct voter input.
“Both approaches limit citizen participation,” Mr Parit said.
However, a recent Constitutional Court ruling prohibits a direct election of CDA members.
The PP proposal envisions parliament selecting 35 members of a drafting committee from 70 candidates chosen by the public.
These seats would be distributed proportionally among MPs, senators, and political parties, thereby reducing the risk of proceedings being dominated by any single bloc.
The source said charter amendment allows PP to remain relevant and stay part of the public conversation while maintaining pressure on the establishment, and reinforcing their reformist credentials.
And even more importantly, it neatly sidesteps the brick wall posed by their mention of their ultimate goal of making revisions to Section 112 of the constitution.
It also enables them to keep their coalition of supporters intact. By positioning constitutional reform as the root cause of Thailand’s democratic stagnation, the party can argue that every other issue — from judicial reform to monarchy reform — flows from it. Even if they fail to achieve full-scale amendment, they can claim a moral victory by keeping the agenda alive.
An unspectacular comeback trail
Following its exit from power, the Pheu Thai Party this week launched a video on its official Facebook page, the first in a new series titled “Pheu Thai Will Return”.
The 23-minute clip featured party leader and former prime minister Paetongtarn reflecting on the party’s two years in government and assuring supporters of Pheu Thai’s readiness to continue unfinished work if given another chance to lead.
In her address, Ms Paetongtarn reiterated her support for signature policies, including the 20-baht cap on electric train fares, affordable housing projects, and education grants. She also highlighted ambitious tourism initiatives, such as bringing Formula 1 (F1) races and world-class entertainment festivals like Tomorrowland to Thailand to revitalise the economy.
However, the “comeback” motif has failed to excite political observers who say the announcement is not enough to ease the crisis of confidence Pheu Thai currently faces.
In recent months, Pheu Thai has suffered a steady loss of MPs to rivals such as BJT and Klatham parties. Many political families have either defected or signalled support for other camps that appear more politically secure.
These defections have worsened the party’s troubles as it has already been shaken by court rulings that removed Ms Paetongtarn from the prime minister’s post and sent her father, former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, back to prison.
Many political analysts say the video, which also unveiled current MPs who have pledged to stay with the party, does little to rebuild trust, let alone “finding its way back to power.”
“Given the current situation, Pheu Thai can’t bring her [Ms Paetongtarn] back,” said Stithorn Thananithichot, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University.
“The clip suggests that she either doesn’t realise the extent of political damage she has done to the party or she can’t bring herself to admit it … Sometimes, playing the role of someone who has been wronged might generate more sympathy,” he said.
Ms Paetongtarn was ousted from office on Aug 29 by the Constitutional Court for an ethics violation over a leaked audio clip with Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen. This enabled the Bhumjaithai (BJT) Party, led by Anutin Charnvirakul, to form a government with the backing of the main opposition People’s Party (PP).
Keeping Ms Paetongtarn at the forefront will only reinforce that she is part of the party’s decline, Mr Stithorn said, noting that if Pheu Thai still wants someone from the Shinawatra family to carry on the torch, it must make that transition soon. Waiting until the election draws near could be too late.
Despite the party’s difficult time, Mr Stithorn believes Pheu Thai could still land a third-biggest party spot, winning between 70-80 House seats in the next polls, which should be enough to give it bargaining power in post-election coalition formation talks.
The number will mark a sharp decline from the 143 seats the party won in the last election.
He said Pheu Thai is now competing not only with the PP and BJT but also with Klatham, which, like BJT, has lured away many of its members.
To regain some footing, Mr Stithorn said the party must pursue three strategies, which are to announce its new prime ministerial candidate early, show how it can outdo the BJT’s policies and ensure its MPs are connected with their constituencies.
He said that the public saw few tangible results during Pheu Thai’s two years in power, so it must clearly explain how it would deliver differently this time, adding that the MPs must show that they serve the people, not just party bosses or ministers.
By comparison, BJT MPs are viewed as more active and visible in their constituencies, he noted.
Additionally, Mr Stithorn. He questioned whether Ms Paetongtarn, who retains the party leadership, recognises the party’s weaknesses under her tenure.
A senior source in Pheu Thai told the Bangkok Post that if the party can secure 70 House seats in the next general election, that would already be considered a success.
“Forget about getting 100 seats. We had 143 in the last election, the second-largest share. Next time, the goal of key figures is to finish third after the PP and BJT, which are competing for the winner’s post,” said the source.
According to the source, the party’s boss — a reference to Thaksin — has instructed the party figures to keep fighting and promised to fully back the MPs who remain loyal to the party, as the party can no longer rely on popularity.
The fight this time is about resources, and the party boss still has plenty, said the source.