As of yesterday morning, the military in Thailand has declared martial law. This was a direct response to a heightened state of political tension after the dismissal of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra from power last week. Thailand is currently gripped by political turmoil owing to different groups contending for control of the country. However, the real conflict in Thailand does not come from the battle for power, but from these groups either blatantly abusing the law or shamelessly ignoring it whenever it suits their needs.

The removal from power of the Prime Minister of Thailand last week is just another phase in the cyclical nature of the political situation in Thailand – where the group in power have tried to abuse the system to their own benefit but are dislodged by their opponents using indirect means (for example protests, legal proceedings, or a military coup). This use of methods outside the legal and conventional political framework to acquire power is the real reason for the crisis and escalation of tensions.

There are multiple groups in Thailand competing for power and the exact nature of them is complex due to the mixture of different ideologies and alliances. However to simplify, there are currently two main factions - the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) and the Red Shirts. The PDRC is the current active protest group who are responsible for the recent shutdown of Bangkok and who catalysed the dismissal of Yingluck Shinawatra. They have ties with the Yellow Shirt protestors who shutdown Bangkok’s main airport in 2010. The opposing faction, the Red Shirts, favour the current government and have ties with the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship protest group, who were involved in the burning down of a major mall in Bangkok in 2010. These two factions have been battling for power over Thailand for the past ten years, using underhanded methods to achieve their goals.

Often, in the past few decades, when a group has come into power in Thailand, new laws are passed or the constitution rewritten to directly benefit those in power. Since 1991, the constitution of Thailand has been rewritten three times (four if we include the interim constitution during the 2006 coup). For example, after the 2006 coup, the constitution was edited to include various clauses that benefited the military junta; such as the introduction of an Election Commission of Thailand which has the power to appoint 73 out of 150 senators in Thailand’s system of government. More recently, the Yingluck government attempted to pass an Amnesty Bill that would pardon political allies and allow for the return of controversial former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra – that bill triggered the current wave of political protests, and not least because Thaksin is none other than Yingluck's brother. The PDRC have announced that they want to rewrite the constitution yet again, specifically intending to include a People’s Council which has the capacity to arbitrarily appoint people into power in the government.

All these are only some of the instances of people in power attempting to modify the Thai legal framework to maintain power over the country. However, not only are people in power abusing the (legal, governing, and political) system, but opponents attempting to gain power are also guilty of ignoring the law whenever it suits their goals. Each protest group has used unconstitutional tactics in order to achieve their aims, such as the occupation of government buildings, airports (e.g. by the People's Alliance for Democracy in 2008), or even Bangkok itself (by the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship in 2010 and PDRC earlier this year).

Members of each group have often ignored criminal charges (e.g. insurrection, trespassing, assault, etc.) against them while simultaneously calling for their opponents to be arrested under similar allegations. These groups have simply ignored the consequences (destruction of buildings, shrinking of the GDP by 2.2 per cent, and shutting down Bangkok) of their actions, believing that the ends justify the means. This constant cycle and escalation of conflict has not only resulted in the polarisation of the groups, but has started to affect the country as a whole.

The problem in Thailand is that these groups have in the past been successful in achieving their goals using these methods and venturing outside the conventional political and legal framework; this has set a precedent for rival factions to similar dubious and unconventional means to achieve ends. This systematic abuse of the laws or blatant disregard for them is one of the key causes of the deepening crisis in Thailand. Until political parties and opposition groups start to compete within a consistent legal framework, Thailand will not be able to resolve the crisis and will move towards an even more unrestrained political battle.