The Bhumjaithai Party, led by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, has officially submitted a constitutional amendment bill to parliament, launching a formal process to rewrite the 2017 charter—but the proposal already faces a tangled web of political obstacles that could delay or dilute reforms for years, if they happen at all.
Why This Matters:
• Three-stage process: The February referendum was just step one. Two more nationwide votes are required before any new constitution takes effect.
• Senate still holds leverage: The draft lowers the approval threshold from one-third to one-quarter of senators, but at least 50 senators can still block the bill.
• Monarchy and state untouchable: Chapters 1 and 2 of the current charter—covering general provisions and the royal institution—are explicitly off-limits.
• Timeline stretches years: Legal experts estimate the entire process will take at least two to four years, with implementation unlikely before 2028-2030.
First Major Move Since February Referendum
Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul confirmed on May 20 that his party had tabled the draft legislation, making Bhumjaithai the first party to formally respond to the February 8 referendum, in which 60% of voters endorsed beginning the process of constitutional reform. That vote, held alongside a general election, gave parliament the green light to initiate amendments to the 2017 charter—a document widely criticized for entrenching military influence and limiting democratic accountability.
The Bhumjaithai Party's draft proposes establishing a 100-member Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA), composed of 77 provincial representatives (one from each of Thailand's provinces) and 23 experts and academics. Crucially, this body would not be directly elected by the public. Instead, members would be selected by legislators from the House of Representatives (500 seats) and the Senate (200 seats) from a pool of 400 candidates. This design reflects Constitutional Court rulings that have blocked proposals for a fully elected drafting assembly, a move seen by critics as narrowing popular participation.
What This Means for Residents
For expats, business owners, and long-term residents in Thailand, constitutional reform carries tangible implications beyond abstract political theory. The charter governs everything from the appointment of judges and independent regulators to the balance of power between elected lawmakers and the military-appointed Senate. Changes—or the lack thereof—can affect legal predictability, business regulation, taxation frameworks, and even the extent to which civil liberties are protected or curtailed.
The Bhumjaithai proposal explicitly bars any amendments to Chapter 1 (general provisions, including the form of government and territorial integrity) and Chapter 2 (the monarchy). This means that structural questions about the role of unelected institutions, the powers of watchdog agencies, and the Senate's veto authority remain on the table, but debates over the constitutional status of the crown are foreclosed entirely.
The coming parliamentary debate will determine whether issues such as regulatory transparency, judicial independence, and limits to executive power receive substantive reform or are diluted to secure conservative support.
Political Divisions and the Senate's Grip
Despite the referendum's clear result, political parties remain deeply divided over the substance and pace of reform. The People's Party (formerly Move Forward Party), now the largest opposition bloc, has signaled it will submit parallel legislation aimed at giving citizens more direct control over legislative, executive, and judicial functions. Their platform includes reducing the influence of unelected senators and independent agencies—a sharp contrast to Bhumjaithai's more cautious approach.
Pheu Thai Party, which shares coalition space with Bhumjaithai in some local contexts, has also voiced support for constitutional change but previously pushed for a single popular referendum to ratify any new charter, rather than the three-stage process mandated by the Constitutional Court. That procedural disagreement alone could fracture coalition discipline if the drafting process advances.
Meanwhile, ultra-conservative factions, including the United Thai Nation Party (which backed former junta leader Prayuth Chan-o-cha), have signaled opposition to substantial reforms, viewing the current charter as a bulwark against populist overreach.
The Senate's veto power remains the most formidable structural obstacle. Under existing rules, amendments require approval from at least one-third of the 200-member Senate (approximately 67 senators). The Bhumjaithai draft proposes lowering that threshold to one-quarter (approximately 50 senators), a compromise intended to ease passage. But even this concession leaves significant leverage in the hands of an unelected chamber, many of whose members were appointed under the previous military government.
Three Referendums and a Long Road Ahead
Thailand's Constitutional Court has ruled that replacing the 2017 charter requires three separate referendums. The first, held in February, authorized parliament to begin drafting. The second will ask voters to approve the drafting process itself or the methods and key contents of the new draft—potentially including amendments to Section 256 of the current constitution, which governs the amendment procedure. The third referendum will be held to ratify the final document.
Legal experts estimate the entire process will take at least two to four years, with implementation expected sometime between 2028 and 2030. This extended timeline reflects both procedural complexity and political caution. The government has signaled that economic challenges—ranging from sluggish growth to household debt—take priority over constitutional restructuring, suggesting that while the reform agenda remains active, it may not dominate the legislative calendar in the near term.
Historical Context and Institutional Resistance
Thailand has lived under 20 constitutions since the abolition of absolute monarchy in 1932, with frequent rewrites following coups or political crises. The 2017 charter was drafted under military oversight following the 2014 coup, and critics argue it was designed to entrench elite control and constrain electoral majorities.
Attempts to amend the charter have repeatedly collapsed. In 2021, parliament rejected proposals to remove the double majority rule for referendums, which required both a turnout of at least 50% and approval by at least 50% of those voting. Constitutional Court rulings have also struck down initiatives to create a fully elected drafting assembly, citing concerns over separation of powers.
These precedents have fostered skepticism about the current effort. Observers note that Bhumjaithai, as a party that thrived under the 2017 system, has limited incentive to pursue radical reforms that could weaken the very institutions that facilitated its rise. The party's insistence on protecting the monarchy chapters and its reliance on indirect selection for the drafting assembly reinforce this cautious posture.
What Happens Next
House Speaker Sophon Zaram confirmed that the Bhumjaithai bill has been placed on the parliamentary agenda. Other parties are free to submit competing drafts, and a legislative debate over the structure, membership, and mandate of the Constitution Drafting Assembly is expected in the coming months.
If the bill passes both chambers and secures the required Senate backing, the next step will be a second referendum to approve the drafting process. Only after that can the assembly convene to begin writing. The final draft would then face a third referendum before it could replace the 2017 charter.
For now, the submission marks a symbolic victory for reform advocates, but the substantive battle has only just begun. The coming months will reveal whether Thailand's political establishment is genuinely committed to opening up the constitutional order—or whether procedural hurdles and entrenched interests will once again derail efforts to rewrite the country's fundamental law.
