Thailand’s 2023 election results energised some Thais and traumatised others. Voters and analysts alike were astonished that a youthful party aiming to transform the country won the most seats, though not a majority. The Move Forward party wanted to de-militarise society and politics, de-centralise government administration, de-monopolise the economy, and curb the ideological, political, and financial power of the monarchy. For decades, Thai politics had revolved around two big questions: Do you support the charismatic Thaksin Shinawatra and his populist Pheu Thai party? Do you support military supervision of politics? Thaksin and the military—once enemies—now had a common foe. Relying on military-appointed senators, they formed a coalition government that pushed Move Forward into the parliamentary opposition. Move Forward’s challenge is to broaden support for its progressive agenda before the next election. That’s a scary prospect for Thaksin and the military because, according to the current constitution, next time they won’t be able to rely on unelected senators to rescue them. The revised edition of this book describes the historical context of these momentous events and trends and shares insights into the social and cultural undercurrents that shape Thai politics. Informed by the latest research, it is an accessible introduction for the general reader, while also offering much to those who want to know more about Thailand’s political dynamics.

Fighting for Virtue investigates how Thailand's judges were tasked by the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX) in 2006 with helping to solve the country's intractable political problems—and what happened next. Across the last decade of Rama IX's rule, Duncan McCargo examines the world of Thai judges: how they were recruited, trained, and promoted, and how they were socialized into a conservative world view that emphasized the proximity between the judiciary and the monarchy. McCargo delves into three pivotal freedom of expression cases that illuminate Thai legal and cultural understandings of sedition and treason, before examining the ways in which accusations of disloyalty made against controversial former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra came to occupy a central place in the political life of a deeply polarized nation. The author navigates the highly contentious role of the Constitutional Court as a key player in overseeing and regulating Thailand's political order before concluding with reflections on the significance of the Bhumibol era of "judicialization" in Thailand. In the end, posits McCargo, under a new king, who appears far less reluctant to assert his own power and authority, the Thai courts may now assume somewhat less significance as a tool of the monarchical network.

A striking new analysis of Myanmar's court system, revealing how the rule of law is 'lexically present but semantically absent'.

"A must-read.... This much-needed and refreshing alternative to simple institutional examinations provides a deep exploration of Thailand and its political upheavals." --Denise M. Horn, Simmons College The prospects for Thailand¿s emergence as a democracy seemed strong in the 1990s. Yet, as most recently demonstrated by military coups in 2006 and 2014, that hasn¿t happened. Why not? Why have factors typically considered advantageous for democratization turned into barriers? Is there a uniquely Thai reason that democratization efforts have failed? Daniel Unger and Chandra Mahakanjana explore the intersecting and often contradictory forces that are shaping the nature of Thai politics today. Paying overdue attention to a complex of social, cultural, and institutional dynamics, they offer a nuanced portrait of the ongoing tug-of-war between authoritarian and democratic impulses. Daniel H. Unger teaches political science at Thammasat University. Chandra Mahakanjana teaches in the Graduate School of Public Administration at Thailand¿s National Institute of Development Administration.

Following a 1932 coup d’état in Thailand that ended absolute monarchy and established a constitution, the Thai state that emerged has suppressed political dissent through detention, torture, forced reeducation, disappearances, assassinations, and massacres. In Plain Sight shows how these abuses, both hidden and occurring in public view, have become institutionalized through a chronic failure to hold perpetrators accountable. Tyrell Haberkorn’s deeply researched revisionist history of modern Thailand highlights the legal, political, and social mechanisms that have produced such impunity and documents continual and courageous challenges to state domination.

"The book will be fascinating reading for Southeast Asia specialists, and researchers on democratization, national identity and the politics of Thailand."--BOOK JACKET.

A sitting justice reflects upon the authority of the Supreme CourtÑhow that authority was gained and how measures to restructure the Court could undermine both the Court and the constitutional system of checks and balances that depends on it. A growing chorus of officials and commentators argues that the Supreme Court has become too political. On this view the confirmation process is just an exercise in partisan agenda-setting, and the jurists are no more than Òpoliticians in robesÓÑtheir ostensibly neutral judicial philosophies mere camouflage for conservative or liberal convictions. Stephen Breyer, drawing upon his experience as a Supreme Court justice, sounds a cautionary note. Mindful of the CourtÕs history, he suggests that the judiciaryÕs hard-won authority could be marred by reforms premised on the assumption of ideological bias. Having, as Hamilton observed, Òno influence over either the sword or the purse,Ó the Court earned its authority by making decisions that have, over time, increased the publicÕs trust. If public trust is now in decline, one part of the solution is to promote better understandings of how the judiciary actually works: how judges adhere to their oaths and how they try to avoid considerations of politics and popularity. Breyer warns that political intervention could itself further erode public trust. Without the publicÕs trust, the Court would no longer be able to act as a check on the other branches of government or as a guarantor of the rule of law, risking serious harm to our constitutional system.