THAILAND: 'Electoral periods are particularly sensitive moments for civic space' - CIVICUS LENS

THAILAND: ‘Electoral periods are particularly sensitive moments for civic space’

CIVICUS speaks about Thailand’s recent general election and constitutional referendum with a representative of Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, a civil society organisation that provides legal assistance and monitors rights violations affecting activists, human rights defenders and protesters.

On 8 February, Thailand held a general election and a referendum on reforming its 2017 military-backed constitution. The conservative Bhumjaithai Party won the election while the referendum showed majority support for reform. However, the credibility of both votes has been widely contested. Deep institutional barriers persist, as unelected judicial and oversight bodies, including the Constitutional Court, Election Commission and National Anti-Corruption Commission, retain substantial authority over elected officials, electoral processes and political parties. The campaign period was further shaped by widespread disinformation.

How credible and fair were the election and referendum?

The credibility and fairness of both votes have been widely contested. On 9 February, the Election Commission stated that it was investigating at least 113 formal complaints of electoral misconduct. Independent monitoring organisation Vote62 received over 5,000 complaints nationwide, including over 1,000 in which polling station tally sheets recorded by observers differed from the official results later published.

Observers documented vote-counting errors, unexplained revisions in reported vote numbers and technical delays in the Election Commission’s reporting system on election night. In some polling stations, there were discrepancies between voter sign-in records and ballot counts. Unusually high invalid ballot rates and significant disparities between advance voting and election day results were also reported in some districts. The opposition People’s Party filed recount requests in 18 constituencies, citing inconsistencies during the tallying process.

Further controversy centred on barcodes and QR codes on party list ballots. The 2017 constitution guarantees election by direct suffrage and secret ballot, and the Election Commission said the codes were used solely for administrative and anti-fraud purposes. However, it also acknowledged that scanning a barcode reveals a ballot’s serial number. Civil society groups argue that, combined with ballot stubs and voter registration data, the system could allow tracing of individual votes. University students have petitioned the Administrative Court to annul the election results, and People’s Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut has called for a new election.

What does the referendum result mean for constitutional reform?

With around 94 per cent of ballots counted and 65.4 per cent voting in favour, the government can claim there’s clear public support for constitutional reform. However, approval doesn’t automatically trigger a rewrite of the constitution. According to previous Constitutional Court rulings, parliamentary authorisation is required before a drafting body can be established, and a full rewrite may require multiple referendums. Additionally, to take effect any changes must be approved by parliament, now dominated by the Bhumjaithai Party, which according to provisional results won 193 seats in the 500-member House of Representatives.

The unelected Senate can also block constitutional change, as this requires support from at least one-third of the body. Senators are not elected through universal suffrage. Only those who run for a seat can vote. In essence, this is an intra-group election in which candidates cast votes among themselves within and across occupational groups, with an application fee that functions as a poll tax for participation. Further complications arise from ongoing investigations into some senators over alleged irregularities in their selection process and alleged financial misconduct.

The Senate also plays a decisive role in approving appointments to independent constitutional bodies, including the Constitutional Court, Election Commission, National Anti-Corruption Commission and Ombudsman’s Office. These institutions exercise substantial authority over electoral oversight, constitutional interpretation and the qualification or disqualification of elected officials. Parliamentary negotiations, judicial interpretation and institutional oversight will therefore ultimately determine the pace and scope of any constitutional change.

How did civil society groups engage with the vote, and what obstacles did they face?

Civil society organisations combined grassroots monitoring with legal scrutiny and public reporting. Groups such as iLaw gathered and analysed thousands of public complaints concerning ballot handling, polling procedures and vote counting, while calling for the release of polling station-level results to increase transparency. Election monitoring networks including WeWatch deployed volunteer observers nationwide and the Asian Network for Free Elections conducted observation to assess electoral integrity against international standards.

Civil society groups also raised concerns about barcodes and QR codes on ballots, warning these could undermine ballot secrecy. On 16 February, a coalition of student representatives filed a lawsuit before the Administrative Court seeking suspension of certification of the results pending judicial review. Our organisation, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, supported them through legal representation and rights-based analysis, arguing the coding system violated the secrecy of the vote, undermining political rights guaranteed by the constitution.

However, there were significant obstacles against participation in post-election monitoring and public scrutiny of electoral outcomes. People who protested against recount outcomes faced criminal complaints ranging from trespass and obstruction of officials to sedition under section 116 of the Criminal Code and violations of the Computer Crimes Act, which are frequently used in cases involving online speech. In Lampang, an academic and a candidate were similarly targeted after posting allegations of election fraud online.

How did disinformation shape voting?

Disinformation posed significant risks to public understanding. Both votes were conducted within a compressed preparation period of around 50 days, giving voters very limited time to access and assess information, particularly about the constitutional change proposals. Misleading visuals, nationalist narratives and unverified claims, particularly those tied to tensions on the border with Cambodia, circulated widely on social media, pulling public debate away from policy and toward security narratives.

Media organisations responded through fact-checking initiatives. The Thai Public Broadcasting Service launched Thai PBS Verify, aimed at monitoring and debunking election-related disinformation. However, a large volume of political content circulated through encrypted or private messaging platforms such as LINE and WhatsApp. These closed networks limited monitoring capacity and made it difficult to assess how widely misleading narratives influenced voter decisions.

What are the prospects for meaningful democratic reform?

The outlook is mixed. Significant risks remain: the continued use of the offence of lèse-majesté under section 112 of the Criminal Code criminalising criticism of the monarchy, sedition provisions under section 116, criminal defamation laws and restrictions on public assembly all constrain civic space. The prosecution of election monitors and protesters demonstrates that electoral periods are particularly sensitive moments for civic space.

Structural barriers persist. Unelected institutions have veto authority over constitutional amendments, and reform-oriented politicians face risks of disqualification or party dissolution. The 2024 dissolution of the Move Forward Party and the 10-year political bans imposed on its leaders following Constitutional Court rulings continue to shape parliamentary dynamics. Ongoing constitutional proceedings against 44 former members of parliament who supported amendments to section 112 could result in lifetime political bans, further narrowing space for reform efforts.

But there are also opportunities. There’s potential for legislative reform, should the new parliament choose to reintroduce the Amnesty Bill covering prosecutions linked to political expression and protest. Expanded election monitoring by rights groups and youth networks has strengthened transparency norms, while administrative petitions and strategic litigation demonstrate the growing use of institutional accountability mechanisms. Whether these developments translate into real democratic change will hinge on ongoing civic mobilisation and the willingness of state institutions to address longstanding concerns regarding political rights and accountability.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.