Thailand’s February 8 general election is accompanied by a referendum that goes to the heart of the country’s long-standing political struggle: whether to replace the 2017 constitution, a charter drafted under military rule following the 2014 coup. The referendum represents the latest episode in a decades-long contest between Thailand’s royalist–military establishment and popular democratic forces seeking greater electoral accountability and civilian control.
Since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932, Thailand has adopted 20 constitutions, most following military coups. Constitutional change in Thailand has therefore historically functioned less as a democratic renewal mechanism and more as a tool for institutionalising elite power after political rupture.
What the Referendum Asks
Voters are asked a single, principle-based question: whether they approve the drafting of a new constitution. The referendum does not present a draft text, but instead seeks a public mandate for initiating a multi-stage constitutional rewriting process.
A majority “Yes” vote authorises parliament to begin the drafting process, while a “No” vote leaves the 2017 constitution intact. Unlike earlier referendums in 2007 and 2016, which sought approval for military-drafted charters, this referendum concerns whether constitutional change should occur at all.
Why the 2017 Constitution Is Contested
Critics argue that the 2017 charter entrenches unelected power at the expense of democratic accountability. Central to this critique is the design of Thailand’s Senate, whose members are indirectly selected through a complex process that limits public participation and enables elite influence.
The Senate holds extensive powers, including oversight of legislation and key appointments to the Constitutional Court and other independent bodies. These institutions possess the authority to dissolve political parties and disqualify elected leaders, giving them disproportionate influence over electoral outcomes.
The constitution also places broad limitations on civil liberties by subordinating rights to considerations of national security and public morality. In effect, the charter institutionalises a system in which elected governments operate under constant constraint from unelected bodies aligned with the conservative establishment.
Supporters and Opponents of Change
Support for constitutional amendment spans much of Thailand’s political spectrum. Major parties across government and opposition including Bhumjaithai, Pheu Thai, and the People’s Party—have endorsed a “Yes” vote, although some insist that provisions relating to the monarchy remain untouched.
Opposition to amendment is concentrated among ultra-conservative and pro-military actors, particularly those associated with former junta leadership. Their declining electoral strength has not eliminated their institutional influence, which remains embedded in the constitutional framework itself.
What Happens Next
A successful referendum does not immediately produce a new constitution. Instead, it triggers a prolonged and procedurally complex process requiring two additional referendums: one to approve the drafting framework and another to ratify the final text.
Experts estimate the process could take at least two years, reflecting both legal requirements and the political sensitivity of constitutional reform. Even if the referendum fails, parliament retains the ability to pursue limited amendments to individual articles, though structural change would remain constrained.
Analysis: Constitutionalism as Power Management
From a political economy and institutional perspective, Thailand’s referendum illustrates how constitutions can function as instruments of power management rather than purely democratic contracts. The 2017 charter reflects the military–royalist establishment’s response to the rise of mass electoral politics associated with Thaksin Shinawatra and his successors.
Rather than eliminating electoral competition, the constitution seeks to contain it, allowing elections to occur while insulating core institutions from popular influence. The referendum therefore represents not only a legal choice but a contest over the locus of sovereignty: whether ultimate authority lies with voters or with guardianship institutions.
In comparative terms, Thailand exemplifies a form of hybrid constitutionalism, where formal democratic procedures coexist with entrenched authoritarian safeguards. The February 8 vote tests whether public legitimacy can be mobilised to challenge this arrangement or whether constitutional rigidity will continue to stabilise elite dominance despite electoral change.
With information from Reuters.
