Move Forward: Thai court dissolves reformist party that won election
www.bbc.com
Move Forward won the most seats in last year’s election - but was blocked from forming a government.

A Thai court has ordered the dissolution of the reformist party which won the most seats and votes in last year’s election - but was blocked from forming a government.

The ruling also banned Move Forward’s charismatic, young former leader Pita Limjaroenrat and 10 other senior figures from politics for 10 years.

The verdict from the Constitutional Court was expected, after its ruling in January that Move Forward’s campaign promise to change royal defamation laws was unconstitutional.

  • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    179·
    3 months ago

    Yeah we had a vote and you won but the royals didnt like the result so yeah, turns out voting is just a joke we made up so we can make you feel worthless.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      1453·
      3 months ago

      Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

      – Denis Diderot

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        451·
        3 months ago

        Also Billionaires, did I forget to mention Billionaires?.. especially Musk.

        – Denis Diderot

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
          38·
          3 months ago

          I doubt Diderot could even comprehend the idea of a billionaire. If he came back from the dead, finding out about it would kill him a second time.

          • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
            281·
            3 months ago

            Billionaires are the kings of capitalist “democracy”. The only difference is the illusion of democracy.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
              3·
              3 months ago

              And they can be arrested for committing crimes, just like you or me. Think Epstein, at least until… y’know.

              This kind of rhetoric cheapens how much progress has already been made and how bad dictatorships suck(ed).

              • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
                3·
                3 months ago

                Thing is they technically can be, but are they ever? Epstein wasn’t a billionaire, he was in the crowd but he was nouveau riche, not truly considered one of them. This kind of gatekeeping shows just how much the wealthy deliberately maintain the class gap.

                And he was definitely a limited hangout: “spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.”

                It’s the phrase “while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case” that really describes what’s happening here.

                That’s why he was killed - they couldn’t risk a high profile person like him talking. They hung out as much as they could afford, and with someone they didn’t really care about. It looked sus, but they really couldn’t afford more, so they just killed him.

                In fact, he taught the wealthy’s children and was seen to flout the boundaries with students and the dress code. He was plucked from there to start rubbing shoulders with the ultra rich and trafficking children for them. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone noticed his indiscretions, and decided that they could extract him from that environment, keep their own kids safe, and ply him with wealth to start exploiting children professionally. Then, if the whole scheme ever came down, they had a ready made fall guy.

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                  2·
                  3 months ago

                  Most billionaires are nouveau rich, if you meant that literally rather than figuratively. They tend to come from a kind of upper-middle or lower-upper class background, because families richer than that are rare, and families poorer don’t have a shot; it’s all a lottery at the end of the day.

                  I think you’re attributing way too much organisation to them, honestly. Western politics runs on open secrets and raw shitty stupidity. This is as true behind closed doors as well; I don’t know any billionaires, but I’ve rubbed up against politicians and church leaders plenty.

                  Somebody paid off a couple prison guards to kill Epstein. I can’t prove it, but it just seems logical. I don’t know who it was, but there were many candidates. I see no reason it would have been more than one.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            5·
            3 months ago

            The 1700’s weren’t known for their economic equality, either. Less penis rockets though.

            I suppose the surprise is how well wealth inequality can perpetuate itself without formal political inequality. At the time, I think everyone figured real general suffrage would inevitably mean classlessness. Yardsale theory is some shit.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          Sure. I do admit I’ve never actually read his writings beyond a few pithy quotes like that. But I have read a fair amount about him.

          • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            3·
            3 months ago

            I am a huge Voltaire fan, so I am not sure how I missed one of the people who were influenced by him and part of that era.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.clubEnglish
        23·
        3 months ago

        It is more like an oligarchy. The king is a figurehead for others running things behind the scenes and an excuse to keep things the way they are.

        There are a lot of interests that don’t want the government that the Thai people have been voting in for the past generation.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.clubEnglish
            6·
            3 months ago

            Yeah, but the problem aren’t the monarchs themselves. It is the state apparatus around the monarchs that keeps fighting back.

            Even if you removed the Thai monarchy, I could easily see the country fall into being run by a junta or presidium of high ranking officials to “safeguard the country”.

            • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
              5·
              3 months ago

              I admit I don’t know enough to make a good opinion on it, aside from my personal feelings that monarchies that do not give up power to democracy are the monarchs that should have their head separated from their necks

    • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.mlEnglish
      7·
      3 months ago

      It’s more likely that the military is behind this call. Thailand may be a monarchy but the monarch is not strictly speaking in charge as far as I know.

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldEnglish
    87·
    3 months ago

    I’m from Thailand. This is not the end. The Move Forward is already a rebrand of previous Future Forward party that was also dissolved and all of the old fucks clinging to power are sure to lose it in the next election cycle. The next iteration will get even more votes!

    • Gerudo@lemm.eeEnglish
      501·
      3 months ago

      More votes? They already proved the votes don’t count though.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        8·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, where does this ultimately go? They can put it off for now, but eventually they have to decide how constitutional their monarchy actually is.

  • Stern@lemmy.worldEnglish
    671·
    3 months ago

    Ask the French how desperately clinging to power worked for royals.