THAILAND€™S POLITICAL LANDSCAPE SHAKEN AS PRIME MINISTER ORDERED TO STEP ASIDE

Thailand’s Political Landscape Shaken as Prime Minister Ordered to Step Aside

Bangkok, July 1, 2025 — In a move that has sent shockwaves through Thailand’s political establishment, the Constitutional Court has ordered the immediate suspension of Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, pending a final ruling on a case questioning the legitimacy of his continued term in office.

The decision, announced late Monday evening, follows a petition filed by opposition lawmakers who argue that Anutin’s time in office has exceeded the legal limits set forth by the Thai Constitution. The court voted 7-2 in favor of suspending the Prime Minister, citing the need to prevent any potential conflicts or disruptions while it examines the issue further.

Anutin, leader of the Bhumjaithai Party and a central figure in the current coalition government, has denied any wrongdoing. He has yet to publicly respond to the court’s order but is expected to issue a statement in the coming days. In the interim, Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan has been tapped to serve as acting head of government.

At the heart of the case is a constitutional provision that limits the tenure of a prime minister to eight years, regardless of whether those years were served consecutively. Opponents argue that Anutin, who first assumed office as part of the post-coup government in 2017, has already reached that threshold.

Supporters, however, maintain that his formal appointment under the current charter only began after the 2019 general election, meaning he has more time left to serve. The court has stated it will deliberate and deliver its final decision in the coming months.

For now, the suspension has raised new uncertainties in a country already navigating political polarization, economic challenges, and social unrest.

Reactions across the country have been mixed. Supporters of the opposition Move Forward Party, which has been critical of Anutin’s administration, celebrated the court’s decision as a win for constitutional accountability. “This shows that no one is above the law,” said Surasak Phongthanavong, a university student and activist. “The rules should apply equally, even to the Prime Minister.”

In contrast, Bhumjaithai Party loyalists argue that the suspension is politically motivated. “It’s an attempt to destabilize the government,” claimed Chaiyos Ratanapong, a regional party official in Nakhon Ratchasima. “The people voted for this administration. It’s unfair to remove their chosen leader without clear evidence.”

The streets of Bangkok remained largely calm following the announcement, though small groups of demonstrators gathered near the Government House and in parts of the city center. Police presence was visibly increased, but there were no immediate reports of unrest.

Thailand has a long and complex political history marked by frequent interventions by both the courts and the military. The Constitutional Court, in particular, has played a pivotal role in previous political upheavals, including the dissolution of parties and the removal of sitting prime ministers.

Political analysts say this latest suspension underscores the fragility of the Thai democratic system. “This is a critical moment,” said Professor Kanya Phumiphat of Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Political Science. “It speaks to the tension between legal structures and popular mandates, and how unresolved constitutional ambiguities continue to haunt Thai politics.”

She added that how the acting government handles this transition period will have a lasting impact on both the legitimacy of the court and the public’s trust in democratic institutions.

Beyond political implications, the suspension could have ripple effects on Thailand’s economy. Investor confidence, already shaky amid global uncertainty, may take a hit if the leadership vacuum leads to prolonged instability.

“The markets don’t like uncertainty,” said Somchai Lertworasakul, a financial analyst based in Bangkok. “When you have a suspended Prime Minister, a pending court case, and questions over the durability of the coalition, that creates hesitation. Both domestic and foreign investors will wait and see.”

Tourism, a vital pillar of the Thai economy, has also shown signs of slowing amid recent political tensions and regional unrest. Some businesses in the hospitality sector worry that renewed protests or leadership confusion could deter travelers just as the country was beginning to recover from the post-pandemic slump.

According to legal experts, the Constitutional Court is expected to take several weeks—possibly months—before issuing a final ruling. During that time, Deputy Prime Minister Prawit will lead day-to-day operations, though observers note he lacks the political clout Anutin wielded within the coalition.

Whether the court ultimately rules for or against the Prime Minister, the fallout could have long-lasting consequences. If Anutin is permanently removed, the coalition government could fracture, potentially triggering new elections or the formation of a new alliance. If he is reinstated, critics may view the process as a politicized delay rather than a fair judicial process.

“There’s no easy outcome here,” said Naruemon Supaporn, a political commentator and columnist. “The country is deeply divided. Every move now will be seen through a partisan lens, and it’s the public that will bear the consequences.”

For many Thais, the situation feels like déjà vu. The country has cycled through repeated periods of elected governments being challenged or overturned by legal or military intervention. While the current suspension is being handled within constitutional channels, it reflects a broader instability that has plagued Thai governance for decades.

“We’ve been here before,” said Supa Panitchpakdi, a retired teacher in Chiang Mai. “It doesn’t matter who wins the election; something always happens to remove them. When will we learn to let democracy work?”

As Thailand enters yet another chapter of political uncertainty, the nation waits—some with hope, others with skepticism—for the court’s final decision. In the meantime, the business of governance continues, albeit under a cloud of questions, speculation, and a renewed sense of unease.