Claimed faults in charter draft could seal its fate

Critics may not buy the idea of “pass the charter draft first and amend it later”. They learned from attempts to amend the 2007 charter, which proved to be an uphill task and plunged the country into a constitutional and political crisis.

CDC chairman Borwornsak Uwanno has urged the NRC to propose changes to provisions of the charter draft with the logic that the whole basket of fruit should not be discarded just because a few pieces are rotten.

The NRC critics, however, hit back that it was the type of fruit presented that was unacceptable.

The CDC had earlier announced that three major principles in the draft must not be touched – the selection of a prime minister, the election system, and the make-up of the Senate – because these principles formed the core political structure and its check systems.

The NRC members who disapproved of these principles threatened to reject the charter draft if the provisions were not changed. Borwornsak and Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha have tried to persuade critics to accept the charter by saying that elected governments can change it whenever they want – but the changes must be the right ones.

Borwornsak urged reformers to pass this charter draft and put it into use for five years, or experiment with it to see if the new constitution weakened the political system or not.

Former Pheu Thai party-list MP Wattana Muangsuk countered that the draft stated that amendments to the basic principles of the charter required two-thirds of Parliament, or 433 votes, and then the amendment bill must pass a public referendum, which makes amending the constitution almost impossible.

Upon scrutiny of the charter draft, Wattana’s points seem valid. Provisions regarding amendments even empower the Constitution Court to reject attempted changes to the following basic principles of the charter draft: principles to ensure that people’s rights, freedom and public participation in politics are protected; the political structure of having two Houses of Parliament; the make-up of each House and the balance of power between the government and Parliament; mechanisms to keep budgets and financial discipline in check; the justice system; and the check mechanism, reform and reconciliation.

Finally, what makes it tough to change the charter is the last chapter regarding rules on amending it, starting from provisions 299-303. The charter draft also says this final chapter is not to be touched.

The Constitution Court could also reject an amendment if it sought to change the constitutional-monarchy system or aimed to separate the country into states.

These rules are testimony to Wattana’s remark that as written, it would be almost impossible to amend the new constitution. 

The requirement for a two-thirds vote is unprecedented, as normally a simple majority of more than half is required for a charter amendment.

Critics have asked, if the drafters insist on designing a charter that is so hard to amend, why not write one that is acceptable from the beginning? The CDC still has time to review the charter to make it democratic and become a sacred law that provides the country’s foundation.

The lesson of “pass the charter first and amend it later”, in connection with what happened with the 2007 charter, is still vivid in many people’s minds. 

Not only will amending the new constitution be almost impossible, even attempts to do so might bring about a new round of political conflict and crisis.