Will drafting a new charter really mean reform?
The National Reform Council is expected to convene its first meeting next week. No more than 15 days after that the Constitution Drafting Committee will be established to write a new charter to replace the one abolished after the coup in May.
Drafting of a new constitution will be done under the concept of “national reform”. Many people understand that this “designing” of a new power structure will result in changes to Thai society. Others hope that things will return to normal, or at least there will be no violent street protests again.
The question is whether those expectations are likely to materialise. Is the so-called “reform” now under way really a reform? How much
do the people involved in this
ongoing process understand about reform?
Reform proposals abound; some attracting praise and others being denounced. What we need is a reform that is designed in a way that the entire system works smoothly. The attention should not be focused on just certain issues of choice.
Many proposals are interesting and worth considering, but the challenge is how to “write the new rules” that make those ideas work effectively for the country. For example, a proposal calls for direct election of a prime minister, contrary to the traditional selection of the government head by elected members of Parliament. There are also proposals for the prime minister to be chosen by a selection committee and for the PM to be a political “outsider”.
A big challenge is how to design the entire system to work in unison. For example, the direct election of a prime minister indicates a strong mandate and public support for the elected head of government, but problems may arise if the majority of MPs in the House of Representatives come from a political party different from that of the PM. A mechanism should be created to ensure that disagreement between the PM and the House will not obstruct the government’s work.
Attention should also be paid to how m,uch power a PM should be given from a direct election. Should the PM’s power be restricted or not?
As for an appointed prime minister who is a non-politician, should he/she be responsible to their parliamentary duties, or subject to power restrictions or tough scrutiny? The constitution drafters should widely discuss and attempt to answer these questions.
There are also decisions as to whether the Parliament should be unicameral or bicameral. There is a proposal for a Parliament with three chambers, the third one being a “people’s assembly”.
Regarding the Senate, if we agree that it should exist, we should not just think about whether senators should be elected or appointed. We should also think about the scope of their power – whether they should just screen the draft laws, or also appoint members of independent organisations and have the power to impeach political office holders.
If MPs have limited power, do we need to reduce the number of MPs? There is a proposal that one MP per province is sufficient for the job of legislating.
There is also the matter of decentralisation of power. Should local administrative organisations be given more power to run provincial affairs? Or should both the central government and the local administrations be given more power?
It is undeniable that the powers in all parts of society are interconnected. In order to solve problems in the system, we should not just address a few problematic points. In doing so, not only will we be unable to solve them, but the problem would be allowed to fester and worsen.
