Political Chaos and Election Disputes Raise Concerns Over Possible Nullification

The political situation in Thailand is in turmoil, with the ongoing process of government formation still unresolved and legal issues potentially leading to the nullification of the 2026 election. The issue centers around the debate over whether QR codes and barcodes on ballots violate the constitutional principle of a "secret ballot" as outlined in Article 85, paragraph 3 of the Constitution.

Concerns have been raised about whether the QR and barcodes on the ballots could compromise the confidentiality of voting. The Constitution requires that voting must be conducted in secrecy, and any situation that undermines this principle may render the election invalid. Additionally, problems such as "ballot mismatch" (where the number of ballots does not match the number of voters) or irregularities in voter registration could lead to a recount or the need for a new election.

The Ombudsman is currently reviewing complaints and may refer the case to the Constitutional Court for a final decision, which could result in the election being declared void. There are comparisons being made to two previous occasions when the Constitutional Court annulled elections — in 2006 and 2014.

Currently, the government formation process remains unclear. The two main scenarios are either a "tricolor flag" coalition at 295 votes without Kla Tham Party or a "blue-red-green" coalition that surpasses 355 votes. However, the outcome remains uncertain.

At the same time, multiple issues related to the election process have sparked legal and public criticism, especially regarding the legality of the QR codes and barcodes on the ballots. According to the Constitution, the secrecy of voting is a fundamental right, and if the election process does not ensure this, it could be deemed unconstitutional.

The "ballot mismatch" issue, where the number of ballots does not correspond with the number of voters, is another legal concern. The law grants the authority to call for a new election or a recount if such discrepancies occur, to maintain the integrity of the election process.

Despite assurances from Election Commission Secretary-General Sawaeng Boonmee that the use of barcodes and QR codes is in line with direct and secrecy principles, there are growing concerns about the transparency and fairness of the election.

1. The principle of direct and secret voting is a fundamental human rights principle in elections, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of the United Nations. It states that voting must be both direct and secret. Simply put, this means voting should be done personally and privately, without anyone knowing your choice.

2. The principle of security of ballots and elections is also derived from the Universal Declaration. It dictates that elections must be "free and fair." Therefore, laws are established to ensure the security of ballots and the election process to guarantee fairness and integrity. This includes preventing ballot fraud, the use of counterfeit ballots, cross-district voting, and ensuring proper management and control over the distribution of ballots.

The Ombudsman has sent a letter to the Election Commission asking for clarification within 7 days, starting February 16, 2026. If the Election Commission fails to respond within the given timeframe, the Ombudsman will proceed with the case and decide whether to refer it to the Constitutional Court.

Deputy Prime Minister Borwornsak Uwanno has explicitly stated that these issues could ultimately be decided by the Constitutional Court.

Moreover, this expanding issue is being compared to the two previous instances of election nullification in the past two decades.

The first occurred during the 2006 political crisis, when prolonged protests by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) from late 2005 led then-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to dissolve parliament on February 24, 2006, calling for new elections on April 2, 2006. However, the situation grew even more tense when opposition parties declared a boycott of the election by not fielding candidates for parliament, pressuring Thaksin to resign instead of dissolving parliament.

Subsequently, a petition was filed to the Ombudsman by Banjerd Singkaneti, a law professor at Thammasat University, and General Saiyud Kerdphol, Chairman of the P-Net Foundation for Democracy, asking the Constitutional Court to rule on the legality of the April 2, 2006 election. The petition raised four key issues:

1. The election date was deemed inappropriate and unfair, as it was only 35 days after the dissolution of parliament.
2. The arrangement of polling booths, where voters faced the booth to vote but had their backs to the election officials, raised concerns about violating the principle of direct and secret voting.
3. The petition called for an investigation into whether large political parties had hired candidates from smaller parties to run in the election.
4. The Election Commission's decision to certify the election results without a full quorum raised concerns about whether it violated the law.

This event also led to what was referred to as "judicial activism." On May 8, 2006, the Constitutional Court ruled that the April 2, 2006 election was void, citing the improper arrangement of voting booths and the unfair election date.

Another example occurred during the 2014 election under the government of Yingluck Shinawatra. Following protests by the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), Yingluck, as prime minister, announced the dissolution of parliament on December 9 to ease political pressure, while the PDRC launched a campaign to block polling stations.

Subsequently, the Ombudsman filed a petition to the Constitutional Court, asking it to rule under Section 245(1) on whether the election was unconstitutional due to the inability to complete voting nationwide in a single day. The Constitutional Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the election violated Article 108, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, and declared it void.

Now, two decades later, the examples of election annulments in 2006 and 2014 are being compared to the current situation.

Amid the ongoing turmoil over government formation, the political landscape is shifting as "political players" push relevant agencies for investigations. This raises the question: In the current political game, which will be resolved first — the government formation under the leadership of the Bhumjaithai Party, or the decision on whether the election will be nullified?