Four years ago, on Feb 21, the Constitutional Court ordered the dissolution of the Future Forward Party, the predecessor of the Move Forward Party, and banned its executive committee members from contesting elections for 10 years.
What was the error? The party was found guilty of receiving 191 million baht in donations from Thanathorn Juangroongruantkit, also the party's leader.
His "donations" were found to have been disguised as loans to evade the rule requiring that donations must not exceed 10 million baht.
This Wednesday, all eyes will be on whether the Move Forward Party will face a similarly painful fate. This time, the charge is far more serious -- the progressive party has been accused of attempting to upend constitutional democracy through the support of its flagship campaign to amend the lese majeste, or Section 112, law.
Only the nine Constitutional Court judges have the answer. But as most judges are conservative-minded as far as lese majeste is concerned, pundits have predicted the chance that the Move Forward Party will escape the axe may be slim to none.
In what may have been a significant indicator, the court rejected the party's request for an inquiry, claiming that such a process is unnecessary as there is already sufficient evidence to deliver a ruling. Instead, the court allowed both the Move Forward Party and the EC to file their closing submissions to the court.
But whatever happens -- either good or bad -- on that day, the party appears ready to face the consequences head-on with gusto.
Against the odds, the party's leadership and its MPs have shown no sign of submission and instead voiced their defiance and determination.
In its latest move, the party has shifted its focus towards challenging the legitimacy of the court's power to dissolve it, claiming the constitution does not empower the court to do this, even though the Political Parties Act specifies that the court may disband a party found guilty of acts to overthrow or that are hostile to a constitutional democracy.
The party is also challenging the legitimacy of the EC's filing of a dissolution case on the ground that the political party registrar has not conducted an inquiry as required by the EC's own regulations. And that the EC did not allow the party to rebut the charges.
It remains to be seen whether this MFP's latest pivot to legal technicality rather than on the factual aspect of the case will be heeded by the court, but it is worth a try. If that fails and the party is disbanded, it will become Thailand's 34th political party to be axed by the court since 2006.
So, over the course of 14 years, 33 parties have been disbanded, the latest being the Future Forward Party.
Those parties were dissolved for various breaches, from minor ones, such as failing to field a candidate for two consecutive general elections, to serious ones, such as nominating Princess Ubolratana as its prime ministerial candidate, as in the case of the Thai Raksa Chart Party. Also, 249 politicians have been banished from contesting elections for 10 years.
That raises a big question about whether dissolving parties for breaches of the law is part and parcel of the democratic process, particularly if a party is dissolved for minor offences.
Looking back at the Future Forward Party's case four years ago, it is questionable whether dissolution was proportionate to the offence. Or was it reasonable? Did such a penalty negate the rights of about 4.7 million voters who voted for it?
The Move Forward Party faces far more serious charges for attempting to upend the constitutional democracy for its relentless campaign to amend the lese majeste law. The big question is: Does peaceful campaigning to amend the law constitute a seditious act that threatens Thailand's administrative system?
What criteria did the EC use in defining the Move Forward Party's peaceful campaign as a seditious act deserving of disbandment and the removal of its executive committee members from office for 10 years?
At least, the EC or the court should look to the Venice Commission's guidelines of the prohibition or enforced dissolution of political parties as a guide on how it should treat the Move Forward Party's case in a democratic manner with respect to rights and freedoms of the people, particularly the 14 million electorate who voted for the party in last May election.
The Venice Commission's guidelines -- created by the Council of Europe's advisory body -- adopt opinions, amicus curiae briefs, studies and guidelines on the protection of fundamental rights, including freedom of association, prohibition of discrimination, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and religion.
One guideline says the prohibition or enforced dissolution of parties may only be justified in the case of parties that advocate the use of violence to overthrow the democratic constitutional order, thereby undermining the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. The fact alone that a party advocates a peaceful change of constitution should not be sufficient for its prohibition or enforced dissolution.
The prohibition or enforced dissolution of political parties should be used with utmost restraint, according to the guidelines on political party dissolution adopted by Venice Committee in December 1999.
Before asking the competent judicial body to prohibit or dissolve a party, governments or other state organs should assess whether the party really represents a danger to freedom and democratic political order or to the rights of individuals and whether other, less radical measures could prevent the said danger.
Dissolving the Move Forward Party will upset many of its supporters. It may put an end to the party as wished by the establishment and right-wing conservatives. But such a harsh action will only be seen as yet another act of persecution against those who dare think and act outside the box.
The reformist spirit, already embodied in countless new-generation Thais, will not be crushed. It will live on and blossom in tandem with change for a better future for the people.
Veera Prateepchaikul is former editor, Bangkok Post.