Draft constitution still shrouded in doubt

AS THE DEBATE ABOUT amendments continues, the charter’s drafters and those who approve the draft constitution are now at loggerheads. That leaves political scientists looking out for what the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) should do.

Last month saw the debating and scrutinising process by the National Reform Council (NRC), with many heated discussions on how the newly drafted charter should be altered. But any amendments of the charter articles will depend on the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC).

Soon the new Constitution draft will reach its approval stage from the reformers. If the draft does not pass, the drafting process will have to start again from scratch – meaning both CDC and NRC will be dissolved as stipulated in the 2014 Provisional Constitution.

Attasit Pankaew, a political scientist and a professor at Thammsat University, said the biggest issue for the new Constitution was with the public’s understanding.

 “Right now we merely know that the charter will or will not be accepted by reformers. A referendum is still uncertain, while the content and principles of the charter were not explained to us,” he stressed.

The weakness of this charter at the moment is that the information in the draft is not reaching the community, he added. 

Attasit cited the perceptions towards the charter that are divided into two groups: one represents the people who support the draft and pick and choose the information for their own audiences; while the other group opposes the draft and is doing the same thing.

Thus, the professor suggested that the informing process be done openly for both supporters and opponents.

Asked to comment on this new charter’s legitimacy, Attasit said the people should certainly be involved as the draft did not come from an election or was bound to the people. But that’s the situation and we have to look beyond the issues.

One certain and final way to promote better legitimacy was through a referendum.

Attasit also voiced concern about political interest groups, explaining that these groups could make Thai politics unstable because anyone could be a candidate without restrictions.

Asked whether there was a tendency for this draft to be accepted by reformers, Attasit said it might pass because the “five rivers” [junta appointed agencies - the NCPO, Cabinet, National Legislative Assembly (NLA), CDC and NRC] hold meetings regularly.

A five rivers meeting was where all junta-appointed organisations discussed national matters, the political scientist explained.

He also said if the drafters made amendments according to the reformers proposals, the draft could be approved. According to his understanding, the reason the CDC was not forwarding the charter draft to the public could mean they were open to altering the articles and principles.

Sirote Klampaiboon, another independent professor, opined that the real issue of this draft was starting from the wrong idea, which had become the wrong principle of the draft.

“CDC had the wrong perception from the start. They are designing a coalition government with the thought that Thai political conflicts result from Parliamentary dictatorship - ideas which are issues in the draft itself,” said Sirote, who is also a political scientist.

He said this conclusion then led to drafting the Constitution to the wrong objectives.

Regarding the content of the draft, Sirote said individuals who come from the people, or represent their people, have less power. Images of democracy in this charter were not imprinted in it.

On the matter of whether he thought the new charter would be accepted by the NRC, he said that if it does not pass and the drafting process goes back to square one, the new drafting committee should be elected by the people to protect relations between drafters and the people.

Sirote also stressed where there were no relations between the Constitution and the people - a further problem would be the question of where the legitimacy of the charter lay. CDC member Jade Donavanik said he was optimistic that the committee would accommodate major amendment proposals. He added that even if there was to be no referendum, people would still accept it as they want the country to return to democracy quickly.