Why Thailand’s Political Crisis Feels Familiar—and What’s Needed to Break the Cycle

History has a habit of repeating itself—but rarely as frequently as it does in Thailand.

On Wednesday, Srettha Thavisin of the populist Pheu Thai party became the fifth Prime Minister in the last 20 years to be ousted by Thailand’s conservative elites. In a 5-4 vote, Thailand’s Constitutional Court ordered Srettha removed from office after a group of senators accused him of an ethical violation, citing his cabinet appointment of a lawmaker who had previously been jailed for bribery.

While his political fate hung in the balance on Wednesday, Srettha himself had appeared quite unbothered, touring a market in Bangkok and getting his secretary-general to attend court on his behalf. After the verdict, a somber Srettha told reporters at the Government House that he accepted the decision. “I reiterate that for the almost one year I have been in this role, I have tried with good intentions to lead the country with honesty,” he said.

“This is not the first time that the Pheu Thai Party has encountered obstacles,” the party said on social media. “Every time we fall, we fall forward. And rise up again with confidence.”

But rather than genuine ethical concerns, critics say, politics was behind the verdict: Like his predecessors who have been toppled by the army or judiciary, Srettha was widely seen as a proxy for Pheu Thai founder Thaksin Shinawatra, whose own premiership was cut short by a military coup in 2006.

Srettha’s dismissal also comes just days after the opposition Move Forward Party was dissolved in another Constitutional Court ruling over its supposedly seditious campaign to amend the country’s royal defamation law. It’s the latest setback to the popular progressive party that emerged as the biggest vote-getter in last year’s general election but was ultimately blocked from forming the government by a hastily-made coalition between Pheu Thai and the military- and monarchy-aligned conservative establishment.

The developments over the past week have only confirmed the cyclical nature of Thailand’s ongoing political crisis. But experts say that, though forces like the unelected and unchecked Constitutional Court and a conservative-dominated Thai Senate remain viewed as defenders of the old guard, the movement for democracy in the country, which is increasingly popular at home and abroad, will continue to gain momentum.

“Thailand’s younger population—and the younger population that will come after them—will support more progressive, more democratic ideals,” Mark S. Cogan, associate professor of peace and conflict studies at Japan’s Kansai Gaidai University, tells TIME. “Those ‘dinosaurs’ will die out eventually,” he says, referencing a pejorative nickname given to Thailand’s conservative elites. But until then, he adds, “like a wounded animal,” those whose power is under threat will “use every tool at their disposal in order to survive.”

Srettha’s dismissal and Move Forward’s dissolution are “even more extreme than what has happened over the last two decades,” Napon Jatusripitak, a visiting fellow at the Singapore-based ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, tells TIME. “I think it’s been made plain that [the Constitutional Court’s] legitimacy should be questioned.”

But while both moves follow a clear playbook—Move Forward’s predecessor party Future Forward was similarly dissolved by a unanimous verdict in 2020—Srettha’s unexpected removal by a split judicial vote has proved a head-scratcher for even the keenest observers of Thai politics.

Srettha was elevated to the premiership last August as part of a post-election devil’s bargain between Pheu Thai and their former conservative rivals, united in the goal to keep Move Forward from power. Some see Wednesday’s verdict as a sign that their alliance is crumbling; others suspect that Srettha was only intended as a placeholder to fend off Move Forward while Pheu Thai and the conservatives continued the politicking over their preferred leader.

Srettha quickly carved out a reputation as a “salesman” for Thailand, pitching economic projects abroad while touting populist policies at home. But while the business-oriented leader had “banked so hard on soft power,” says Cogan, his short-lived efforts have now been diluted by the recent political upheavals that have “damaged” Thailand’s international image. Last week, Move Forward’s dissolution was met with statements of concern from Amnesty International, the United Nations, the European Union and the U.S. Department of State.

As Thaksin’s camp and the conservatives negotiate over the imminent selection of a new Prime Minister, the progressive movement is intent on breaking Thailand’s cycle of political crisis.

While Move Forward’s former leader Pita Limjaroenrat is barred from politics, the dissolved party’s 143 lawmakers have regrouped under the new name the People’s Party. The reincarnation of Move Forward announced on Wednesday that it opposed the verdict to remove Srettha from office, decrying the powers of the Constitutional Court and saying that it “believes that today’s events will make all sectors of society more aware of the urgent need to draft a new constitution.”

And while the next government—whether led by Pheu Thai’s Chaikasem Nitisiri, Thaksin’s daughter Paetongtarn Shinawatra, conservative power broker Anutin Charnvirakul, or some other contender—is unlikely to help the People’s Party enact its liberal reform agenda, the progressive movement has its sights on a landslide general election victory in 2027, when it’s hoping to finally form a “government of change.”

“The establishment has been attempting to kill democracy, but that hasn’t been successful … because now you can see Move Forward is back in business,” Titipol Phakdeewanich, a political scientist at Ubon Ratchathani University, tells TIME. “It’s still possible for progressive parties to make a move, because they cannot entirely shut down progressive parties. At least they cannot stop elections anyway.”

But Cogan warns that the People’s Party cannot rest on its popularity alone. “There has to be some other development than just at the ballot box,” he says.

“So you can have all the success at the ballot box. But if you’re prevented from taking power, what does it matter? That’s not democracy,” says Cogan. “They must start cracking at the edges of the pillars that hold up those conservative elites.”