Referendum: a vote Democrats are happy to shun
Play
It remains unclear how the Democrat Party will campaign after its latest call for the public to "abort" a planned national referendum on changing the Constitution - but the easy way to obstruct the process might be to urge voters not to vote. However, t
Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva did not make clear yesterday how he would campaign to try to kill the charter rewrite. But he said his ultimate goal was for Thais to reject the move, which he claims is being done to try to amend Article 309 of the 2007 charter.
Article 309 legalises the actions and orders of the coup-makers in 2006. Removing that would help Thaksin clear charges taken against him after the coup that toppled his government, the Opposition says.
Legally, there are two ways to abort the referendum.
The first would be to discourage voter turnout so that less than half of all eligible voters participate.
According to the Constitution and referendum law, a referendum requires more than half of all eligible voters to come out to vote. And the resolution must come from the majority of those who vote.
Currently, there are around 46 million eligible voters. That means the referendum would be legitimate only if over 23 million people vote.
If the Democrats succeed in keeping the voter turnout low, the referendum process would be killed.
One camp said it would not be easy to get 23 million people to vote. Wiratana Kalayasiri, a Songkhla Democrat MP and a legal expert for the party, said in the last election, Pheu Thai won 15 million votes in the party-list system while other coalition partners received around three million votes. So, the coalition parties could get a total of 18 million votes in the referendum, leaving them needing to find five million votes to support a charter rewrite.
Back in the last referendum on 2007’s charter draft, the turnout was only 57 per cent – or 25 million out of 45 million eligible voters casting a vote.
But others say it shouldn’t be difficult to get 23 million people to cast a ballot. This camp compared the turnout in the last election, in which 35 million people came out to vote, and the referendum.
Some observers argued that the turnout between a general election and national referendum cannot be compared.
“People are normally more enthusiastic and more familiar with a general election than a national referendum. The election is more involved or closer to their lives than the referendum,” an observer said.
Moreover, it is a “duty” for every eligible voter to cast a vote in a general election – otherwise they lose some electoral and political rights. Whereas, it is a “right” for eligible voters to support or oppose a referendum. And there is no punishment if they don’t take part.
The second way to reject the charter amendment is to campaign for the public to vote against the charter rewrite. According to Article 9 of the referendum law, an organic law, a resolution for a referendum must come from the majority of voters who turn out. In this case, if the Democrats want the charter rewrite proposed by the government to fail, they must encourage millions to vote against the rewrite.
However, this way would seem harder for the Democrats, who have already lost an election to Thaksin’s camp.
“The most effective way [against the charter rewrite move] is not to exercise the people’s vote. When the turnout is high, it is unlikely there will be more No votes than Yes votes,” Wirat explained.
