BANGKOK - A Thai court ruled Friday that a postponement of the country’s forthcoming elections, which protesters have worked feverishly to block, is lawful under the country’s constitution.
The decision by the country’s Constitutional Court was a blow to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and surprised many legal scholars, who said there are no provisions under Thai law for a delay.
Some constitutional experts described the decision as a form of judicial coup d’etat because it would leave a potential power vacuum if elections were not held.
The court’s decision heightens the complex and debilitating power struggle between Yingluck’s governing party, which is expected to win the elections if they proceed, and protesters who have spent the past two months on the streets of Bangkok vowing to stop them.
The protesters’ goal is to purge from politics Yingluck and her brother Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire tycoon and former prime minister who left the country in 2008 to escape a two-year prison sentence for abuse of power.
An aide to Yingluck said on Thai television that the government would study the court’s decision. But he also seemed to leave the door open for negotiations with opposition forces, especially the boycotting Democrat Party.
Explaining its decision, the court said in a short statement that the constitution “does not absolutely mandate that the election day cannot be rescheduled.”
The court listed circumstances that would justify delaying an election, including acts of nature and situations that “obstruct the general election process,” “damage the country” or cause “significant public calamity.”
The Thai Constitution requires that elections be held “not less than 45 days but not more than 60 days from the day the House of Representatives has been dissolved.”
The elections are scheduled for Feb. 2, a few days before the 60-day period expires.
Protesters have blocked the registration of candidates in more than two dozen districts and this week stopped the Election Commission from training election workers in Bangkok.
The protest leader, Suthep Thaugsuban, has pledged to obstruct the elections at all costs.
“The great mass of people will block it in every way,” he said Thursday night.
Advance voting begins Sunday, with about 2.2 million people registered to vote early, compared with 2.7 million in the last election in 2011.
The protest movement, which says it is fighting the dominance and corruption of Yingluck and her family, draws the bulk of its support from Bangkok and southern Thailand. The governing party, which has won every election since 2001, has the backing of voters in the north and northeast. Government supporters say there has always been corruption in Thailand and the protesters simply want to seize power.
A nationwide opinion poll released Friday appeared to show that protesters hold a minority view in their desire to block elections.
Nearly 80 percent of respondents to the poll said they intended to vote if an election is held on Feb. 2.
In answer to a separate question, just more than 28 percent said there should be “reforms before elections,”one of the main slogans of protesters, who say they want the country ruled by an unelected “people’s council” while largely unspecified changes are carried out.
The telephone survey, which was conducted by Bangkok University, polled 1,018 respondents and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Yingluck’s government faces not only the wrath of protesters but also hostile government agencies. The Election Commission, which requested the judgment that the Constitutional Court issued Friday, has repeatedly sought to postpone the elections. Somchai Srisutthiyakorn, one of the commissioners, has argued that the elections could lead to violence and a military coup.
The Constitutional Court has ruled against the government on several key decisions in recent weeks and is perceived by government supporters as highly political. In November, the court overturned a constitutional amendment to make the Senate, the upper house of Parliament, a directly elected body on the grounds that procedures were not followed and that it was an attempt to “overthrow” the democratic system.
In analyzing Friday’s decision, Pornson Liengboonlertchai, a scholar at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok who specializes in constitutional law, echoed the views of other experts in saying the court appeared to be making law, rather than interpreting it.
“The power to postpone elections does not exist in any part of the Thai Constitution at all,” Pornson said on Thai television. “The court itself is trying to establish this power.”
Front Section, Pages 2 on 01/25/2014