Who Speaks, Who Belongs, and What Justice Requires: Constitutional Struggles in Thailand and Beyond

This article examines how constitutional reform in Thailand operates simultaneously as a tool of authoritarian resilience and a contested site of justice. Drawing on qualitative data from 32 focus groups conducted across Thailand’s six regions, the study foregrounds citizens’ lived experiences and interpretations of constitutional design—not merely as legal engineering, but as mechanisms of political exclusion, procedural injustice, and symbolic subjugation. Whereas previous literature has predominantly examined elite-driven institutional changes, this article uniquely centers ordinary citizens' voices, revealing widespread perceptions of procedural unfairness, moral delegitimization of dissent, and civic disenfranchisement. Younger and ethnic minority participants articulate their democratic demands explicitly as justice claims—emphasizing fairness, recognition, and meaningful participation as essential for constitutional legitimacy. Theoretically integrating authoritarian constitutionalism, strategic-relational state theory, and procedural justice scholarship, the study argues that hybrid regimes do not merely impose elite dominance through formal legal structures, but actively manufacture legitimacy through symbolic manipulation and moral narratives. In response, citizens assert an alternative vision of constitutionalism, rooted in civic authorship, pluralistic inclusion, and moral accountability. Bridging normative theory and empirical inquiry, the article advances social justice research by demonstrating that the struggle over constitutional reform in Thailand fundamentally concerns who has a voice, who is recognized, and what justice entails within unequal legal-political orders.