Referendum on new charter a test of the junta's sincerity
Play
Talk of a referendum has become a hot issue for powers behind the writing of the new constitution, with many sides having different perspectives on whether or not it should be held before the new charter comes into force.
One thing is important – whether the referendum is held or not, it would prove the junta’s sincerity in promoting democracy.
A referendum is the principle or practice of referring measures proposed or passed by a legislative body to the voters for approval or rejection.
Though the term could encompass various issues, a referendum is most often used in political science. And surely, its concept is understood by most people as leading to a better democracy.
In Thailand, referendums have been held for many previous charters dating back to 1949. Three were held to give people the chance to approve charter amendments and one was held to support the whole constitution – in 2007.
To hold a referendum for the new charter, on one hand would show the junta’s sincerity and might assuage some of those opposed to the coup. The junta could also claim to have promoted a better democracy under these circumstances.
On the other hand, a referendum has disadvantages for the country as well. It would need a huge budget – and if the results show that people do not approve of the new charter, the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) would have wasted its efforts and the whole process would have to be restarted.
The current junta has shown no clear stance on holding a referendum for the upcoming charter but it has chosen to wait and gauge public sentiment. Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha and his deputy Wissanu Krea-ngam echoed the view that there were seven to ten months to go before the charter would be drawn up. The premier said the decision would depend on how the situation developed.
His remark may have referred to the CDC’s process on public participation and gathering of public opinion, including related agencies’ input on what should be inserted in the constitution.
Political observers believe that any attempt to include public opinion on a charter draft would determine the success or acceptance of a charter.
If people were satisfied with the new constitution, scheduled to be ready next year, it was likely a referendum would not be needed. In contrast, if the government intentionally blocked public comment, it might lead to an outburst and public demands for a referendum.
The junta and the government have kept saying all opinions are welcome – but what has happened over past weeks has revealed conflict between their words and their actions.
The junta has not allowed many forums involving public participation. And then there were events disrupted by some students’ three-finger salute copied from the movie “The Hunger Games”.
The junta, it seemed, feared these events could ignite further turmoil and focus overly on people demonstrating their freedom of expression.
As a result, the determination of the junta to promote reconciliation and reform would be obscured by its response and actions against its citizens. The public would understand that such reforms could not go together because of the junta’s actions. Furthermore, their response could also interrupt any initial plan not to hold a referendum.
They could shut down public forums, put pressure on some TV programmes, and not let the public speak. At the same time, they have been saying they want to promote democracy.
Maybe the junta has been focusing on too many topics – and certainly one distraction could lead to another.
