Notwithstanding the Constitutional Court ruling in favour of Pita Limjaroenrat, chief adviser of the Move Forward Party (MFP), in a case involving his iTV share ownership, the progressive party cannot breathe a sigh of relief just yet.
The opposition leader is still awaiting another crucial verdict: a decision on whether its policy on Section 112 of the Criminal Code, better known as the lese majeste law, was an attempt to overthrow the constitutional monarchy. A court ruling against the party could seal its fate. The next ruling is scheduled for this coming Wednesday.
The worst-case scenario, as foreseen by some political observers, could see the court order the party to dump its 112 amendment policy without dissolving it, but it would nevertheless be a verdict that would enable the MFP's opponents to take the extra step. They would likely follow the verdict with a petition asking the court to dissolve the party. If the court agrees, Mr Pita and the rest of the MFP's executives will be red-carded for 10 years.
Whichever way it goes, it's undeniable that Mr Pita's political resurrection has invigorated the MFP and breathed some excitement back into Thai politics. His return is a huge boost, which will strengthen the party as the main opposition. Despite a few scandals involving some male party members and Mr Pita's six-month absence from parliament, the MFP still led all other parties in last month's opinion polls.
MFP's strength is in sharp contrast to the Pheu-Thai-led government, which has only seen its popularity run downhill. The Pheu Thai Party -- the dominant force in Thai politics for two decades -- is in desperation mode after failing to fulfil several promises, ie, a 20-baht fare for all electric train routes and a 400-baht daily wage. Its flagship 10,000-baht digital wallet has been delayed and met with resistance. The Land Bridge, its latest pet project, has also drawn only heavy criticism and questions about its feasibility.
Now that he can resume his role as an MP, Mr Pita and the party will shine brighter than ever. This is unfortunate for Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin.
Mr Pita's chances of becoming PM in this parliament are quite dim. Yet, he is still the sole premiership candidate of the MFP, and it's widely expected that he will be re-appointed as MFP leader, replacing Chaithawat Tulathon when the party convenes its general meeting in June.
At the same time, the Senate, which killed off Mr Pita's bid to become PM, will end its tenure in May. As the new Senate will have no such power, it will be entirely up to the Lower House, which will vote for the next PM. If an incident forces PM Srettha to dissolve parliament and call an early election, such a move could be a gain for Mr Pita.
The only problem for the MFP now is a legal charge regarding its attempts to revise Section 112, brought to the court by Theerayut Suwankesorn, a lawyer of Buddha Isara, the spiritual leader of the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC). It must be noted that Mr Theerayut isn't seeking dissolution, only for the court to order the party to end its 112 amendment mission.
But if the charter court endorses Mr Theerayut's cause, he can play the ball into the Election Commission's court. The lawyer already did this in the Thai Raksa Chart Party (TRC) dissolution case. When the charter court viewed the party's nomination of Princess Ubolratana as its PM candidate in 2019 as an attempt to sabotage the monarchy, he forwarded the ruling to the poll agency, which subsequently petitioned the court to dissolve the party.
The MFP may face the same fate if events play out in this order.
It should be noted that Mr Theerayut was previously successful in securing a charter court ruling against pro-democracy groups' demonstrations on Section 112, interpreting the move as an attempt to overthrow the constitutional monarchy, not to reform the institution. Such a ruling makes it impossible for the young activists to rally without legal troubles. The court verdict against the TRC party and young activists could be interpreted as a precedent for the current situation.
However, some analysts believe this time court might weigh in on the side of leniency, ordering the party to withdraw its policy on Section 112 amendment but stopping short of interpreting the move as an attempt to overthrow it worthy of disbandment.
This is because the court and the far-right camp may have well learned from the past that party dissolution is not the answer. After all, it did little to halt the rise of the movement behind the Future Forward Party (FFP), and it proved equally ineffective years before in curtailing the rise of Pheu Thai (formerly Thai Rak Thai).
Dissolution may only breed a new and bigger problem.
Just as the MFP was born out of the ashes of its predecessor -- the FFP -- the group's next iteration may re-emerge even stronger still.