The countdown has begun, with the Constitutional Court deciding on the fate of the Move Forward Party (MFP) next week.
MFP members and supporters are holding their breath over whether the opposition party will face the same fate as its predecessor, the Future Forward Party (FFP), which was dissolved in 2020.
The court axed the FFP over a loan to the party by then leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, who, together with FFP executives, was slapped with a 10-year ban from politics. Mr Thanathorn is now chairman of the Progressive Movement.
The MFP -- winner of the 2023 poll with 14 million votes -- is in trouble over its attempts to seek amendments to Section 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as lese majeste law, as petitioned by the Election Commission (EC) to the charter court.
In a Jan 31 ruling, the court interpreted the party's move as an intention to change the relationship between the monarchy and its subjects and, therefore, undermine the constitutional monarchy. This ruling has drawn wide debate.
The court subsequently ordered the party to cease all Section 112-related campaigns.
The party has since abided by this ruling, but the EC has proceeded with its aim of dissolving the MFP.
Indeed, the prospects look bleak for the MFP given that the court on July 17 turned down its request for an inquiry that would have included Suraphol Nitikraipote, a professor of public law and an adviser to the EC, as one of the party's key witnesses.
Prof Suraphol argued that MPs campaigning for the amendment of Section 112 or party members appearing at rallies against the lese majeste law are lawful exercises of free expression in accordance with democratic principles.
At the same time, the MFP has challenged the EC's application of Section 92 of the Political Parties Act without using Section 93 of the same law, which should invalidate its dissolution attempt.
However, most observers are pessimistic about the court ruling on Aug 7.
Such pessimism grows stronger with reports the EC is about to appoint a new advisers' team, meaning Prof Suraphol may be dismissed from his advisory role. For many, this is too much of a coincidence.
Domestic and international human rights agencies have watched the ongoing process with concern, alleging it is politically motivated by the old power elites, akin to what happened to the FFP.
Such tactics have created a backlash and sympathy, enabling the MFP to gain enormous public support in last year's election.
While party dissolution is in accordance with the 2017 charter, such a severe penalty puts the country in a bad light.
People should heed Prof Suraphol's warning about the backlash from a party dissolution. It is indeed another example of the demise of the country's democracy.
Furthermore, the heavy-handed use of Section 112 is like a two-edged sword, with the use of such a controversial law negatively affecting the revered institution.