Scholarlink

<p>This article examines constitutional reform in Thailand as both a mechanism of authoritarian resilience and a contested site of justice. Drawing on qualitative data from 32 focus group discussions conducted across Thailand’s six regions, the study foregrounds citizens’ lived experiences of constitution-making, approaching constitutions not merely as instruments of legal design but as moral and political projects shaped through exclusion, symbolic power, and procedural control. Whereas existing scholarship has focused primarily on elite strategies and institutional outcomes, this article centers ordinary citizens’ interpretations of constitutional legitimacy. The findings reveal widespread perceptions of procedural injustice, moral delegitimization of dissent, and civic disenfranchisement, rooted in exclusionary drafting processes, unelected institutions, and sacralized constitutional narratives. Younger participants and ethnic minorities were especially likely to articulate democratic demands as justice claims, emphasizing fairness, recognition, and meaningful civic authorship as prerequisites of legitimate constitutional order. Integrating insights from authoritarian constitutionalism, strategic-relational state theory, and procedural justice scholarship, the article argues that hybrid regimes do not rely on legal form alone to sustain dominance, but actively manufacture legitimacy through symbolic and moral narratives that constrain popular sovereignty. At the same time, citizens contest these arrangements by reframing constitutional reform as a struggle over voice, inclusion, and moral accountability. By bridging normative theory and empirical inquiry, the study contributes to comparative justice research by demonstrating how constitutional legitimacy in hybrid regimes is negotiated through lived experience and contested claims to justice, rather than secured through institutional design alone.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Who speaks, who belongs, and what justice requires: constitutional struggles in Thailand and beyond

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月8日

查看全文
  • Wichuda Satidporn,
  • Stithorn Thananithichot

摘要

This article examines constitutional reform in Thailand as both a mechanism of authoritarian resilience and a contested site of justice. Drawing on qualitative data from 32 focus group discussions conducted across Thailand’s six regions, the study foregrounds citizens’ lived experiences of constitution-making, approaching constitutions not merely as instruments of legal design but as moral and political projects shaped through exclusion, symbolic power, and procedural control. Whereas existing scholarship has focused primarily on elite strategies and institutional outcomes, this article centers ordinary citizens’ interpretations of constitutional legitimacy. The findings reveal widespread perceptions of procedural injustice, moral delegitimization of dissent, and civic disenfranchisement, rooted in exclusionary drafting processes, unelected institutions, and sacralized constitutional narratives. Younger participants and ethnic minorities were especially likely to articulate democratic demands as justice claims, emphasizing fairness, recognition, and meaningful civic authorship as prerequisites of legitimate constitutional order. Integrating insights from authoritarian constitutionalism, strategic-relational state theory, and procedural justice scholarship, the article argues that hybrid regimes do not rely on legal form alone to sustain dominance, but actively manufacture legitimacy through symbolic and moral narratives that constrain popular sovereignty. At the same time, citizens contest these arrangements by reframing constitutional reform as a struggle over voice, inclusion, and moral accountability. By bridging normative theory and empirical inquiry, the study contributes to comparative justice research by demonstrating how constitutional legitimacy in hybrid regimes is negotiated through lived experience and contested claims to justice, rather than secured through institutional design alone.