Thailand’s political temperature has reached boiling point once again after Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul announced the dissolution of the House of Representatives. Shortly afterwards, the Royal Gazette published the Royal Decree in the early hours of December 12—something that, in political terms, is by no means new.
The latest dissolution came just one day after Constitution Day, observed every year on December 10. On this occasion, Anutin said the decision stemmed from a political structure in which the administration is effectively a “minority government”, forced to keep itself afloat amid uncertainty in the House of Representatives—leaving it without political stability.
Government administration has become obstructed and inefficient, risking international confidence and potentially eroding public faith in Thailand’s democratic system with the Monarch as Head of State.
To prevent the country from becoming bogged down—and to return decision-making power swiftly to the people, the ultimate holders of sovereign authority—the government moved to dissolve the House.
Looking back across more than 90 years of Thai political history, the House has been dissolved many times. Data from the National Assembly Library of Thailand indicates that over nine decades, the House has been dissolved 15 times.
This latest dissolution marks the 16th. It is hard to deny that each dissolution serves as an indicator reflecting political fragility and instability, which can be grouped into four main types:
Losing a vote / lack of stability
This is the most common cause in Thai politics—when a government cannot command votes in the House, or when severe conflict erupts within a coalition, making it impossible to continue governing. Examples include dissolutions in 1938, 1976, 1986, 1988, 1995, 1996, 2011, and most recently 2025.
Policy or legislative conflict
This occurs when a government attempts to push through major legislation—such as an amnesty bill or constitutional amendments—but fails to secure broad public acceptance, triggering resistance and a political crisis.
Examples include 1945, during the government of M.R. Seni Pramoj, amid conflict over a war-criminals law; and 1986, under Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, when there was opposition to amendments relating to the party-list electoral system.
Political/economic crisis and mass protests
In these circumstances, dissolutions often follow large-scale demonstrations or an economic crisis, forcing the government to return authority to the people in search of a way out. A clear example is 1992, following the political crisis known as Black May.
Political strategy
A dissolution used to gain political advantage—for instance, timing a new election to enable candidates to switch parties in time, as occurred under Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha in 2023.
A timeline of Thailand’s House dissolutions