Come what may on Aug 7, the opposition Move Forward Party (MFP) appears to be ready to face the axe from the Constitutional Court. The party could be dissolved and/or all 11 members of the executive committee barred from contesting elections for 10 years, as sought by the Election Commission.
The prospects of the party surviving the onslaught from the court appear slim given the court's decision last week rejecting the party's request for an inquiry to be held, claiming the EC did not follow legal process in the handling of the case and submitted the case to the court without holding an inquiry to allow the party to defend itself.
The EC argued there was no need for an inquiry as the court, on Jan 31, found the party and its chief adviser Pita Limjaroenrat guilty of attempting to upend the constitutional monarchy through its campaign to abrogate or amend the lese majeste law. The court also ordered the party and Mr Pita to cease such activities.
The EC also claimed its request that the court dissolve the party and bar its executive committee from elections is the extension of an unfinished job after the court delivered its ruling.
The EC's arguments are contentious. To begin with, the dissolution case is a new case as the old case was already over with the court's conviction ruling even though it was the same person, Thirayuth Suwankaesorn, who initiated both cases with the EC.
In a normal legal proceedings, an inquiry or a trial must be held to give the defendant a chance to make rebuttals before a court delivers its ruling. In this dissolution case, the EC bypassed the inquiry process, which is not legal.
It is indeed a pity that the court chose to negate the Move Forward Party's request for an inquiry, given the severity of the punishments if the party is found guilty. Dissolution of a party equates to a death sentence for the party, while barring the executive committee from contesting elections for 10 years resembles long-term imprisonment.
Suraphol Nitikraipote, a professor in public law and an adviser to the EC, one of the key witnesses of the Move Forward Party, contends that campaigning for an amendment of the lese majeste law by MPs or their appearances at rallies against the law are a lawful exercise of free expression in accordance with democratic principles.
Similarly, the use of parliamentary positions by Move Forward MPs to guarantee bail applications for suspects on lese majeste charges is an action by individual MPs for which the party should not be held accountable.
More importantly, he warned the court must take extreme care in invoking its power to dissolve a party.
Whether the court will heed Prof Suraphol's warning or to be more broad-minded with divergent views regarding the lese majeste law remains to be seen.
But what the court cannot stop, even with an order to dissolve the party and to banish its 10 executive committee members into the political wilderness, is the winds of political change and the aspirations of a new generation of Thais for reform, politically, socially and economically.
Conservatives in Thai society, particularly those in the judicial community, may believe that strict enforcement of the lese majeste law and severe punishment may help in protecting constitutional democracy.
But young people may think differently. They believe harsh penalties will not work effectively in the same way as a death penalty for drug trafficking is no longer an effective deterrent as manifested by the overwhelming flow of meth pills into the country and the seizures of huge drug hauls.
The dissolution of the Move Forward Party will not stop the party or its successor from changing their narratives on the lese majeste law although it may soften their stance to accommodate the old generation for the sake of peaceful co-existence.
On the contrary, the dissolution order may well backfire on conservatives as fair-minded people may switch allegiance to support the Move Forward Party or its successor out of sympathy or the belief that the elites in society are out to crush the party and its aspiration for change which is in sync with that of young people.
Come what may, the Move Forward Party will not disappear like thin air from the political landscape. The size of the party's seats in the House will shrink from 148 to 141 which still leaves them the largest bloc of all parties. A new crop of leaders will emerge stronger if they stand firm on their principles and pledges for change.
The ongoing effort in the House to push for an amnesty to wipe the slate of politically-motivated offences since 2005 barely gets to the core issue, which is the lese majeste law.
The lese majeste law is not a divine law. It was crafted by humans in the belief that the harsher the law, the more effective it will be in protecting the sanctity of the high institution. That proposition remains doubtful.
But faith and trust in the virtues of the institution will survive. It is this area that should be enhanced.
Veera Prateepchaikul is former editor, Bangkok Post.