Public interest should determine need for referendum

A referendum is a popular vote by the electorate to determine whether they approve a specific legislative act or national issue. Like an election, it is a tool of democracy that expresses the will of the people.
A plebiscite was organised for the final draft of the 2007 constitution, which was written after the 2006 coup. At that time, 57.8 per cent of eligible voters who turned out approved of it, compared with 42.4 per cent who voted against it. The voter turnout was 57.6 per cent.
Certainly, the idea of holding a referendum for the next constitution has attracted both support and opposition.
Proponents of a referendum believe that a public stamp of approval would provide legitimacy to the charter written after another coup. Academic Parinya Thewanarumitkul, a lecturer in law at Thammasat University, said the referendum organised for the 2007 constitution served as the “minimum standard” to be met by any subsequent constitution.
Many people backing a referendum are members of the Constitution Drafting Committee, who are academics or politicians. They are well aware of the legitimacy problem with this constitution, and they see the need to “connect it with the people” in order to gain acceptance from the public.
Several eligible voters agree with the idea of holding a referendum. For them, this is at least a way to let them have their say in the country’s highest law.
However, opponents of a referendum include people with much influence and a major role in the drafting of the new constitution. These include Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam and Paiboon Nititawan, a key National Reform Council member.
Wissanu, who was among the drafters of the current provisional charter, said he was concerned that holding a referendum on a new constitution might further split the country. However, he added that if the public wanted it and the situation permitted, a referendum would eventually be held.
Paiboon saw no need for a referendum, saying it was a waste of public funds and that he did not think a referendum would serve as a “shield” for the new constitution or could ensure that it would be in use for a long time.
A number of people who are against the coup also saw no need for a referendum. They said they were worried that if the charter draft failed to get public acceptance, the coup-makers might use this as a reason to extend their stay in power. They also argued that such a referendum could give legitimacy to certain clauses in the new constitution that may be viewed as undemocratic.
The debate over this issue should be based on the public interest, and not personal advantage. There should be no hidden agenda. Also, the new constitution should not be written in a way that helps retain power for certain individuals or groups of people.
At least the ongoing debate has allowed us to see the advantages and disadvantages of holding a referendum. Also, we could see if some people are debating with the public interest in mind or with the belief that the world revolves around them.
It is the National Council for Peace and Order, which staged the coup in May, that will have the final say on whether a public referendum will be held on the new constitution.