Case of damned if we do, damned if we don't?

The Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) gave five reasons to back its proposal for a plebiscite on the new constitution,

First, the constitution is the country’s highest law, and Thai citizens should be asked whether they approve of the laws that bind them. 

Second, public participation is of utmost importance in politics and the public needs to vote to express its opinion on the new constitution, as the charter will set the rules for political institutions to follow.

Third, the 2007 constitution also went through a national referendum. The new charter should therefore be subject to the same process in order to ensure its legitimacy.

Fourth, the CDC will have an opportunity to explain to the public the essential parts of the draft constitution.

Last, the new constitution requires that any amendment to it would need to go through a referendum. It stands to reason, therefore, that the constitution itself should go through a referendum.

Support for holding a referendum on the new charter is on the rise. Prayut will have to start getting more serious about this issue.

In addition to the question on whether a referendum should be held, another question is how it should be done.

 

Many restrictions

What is going to happen if the referendum is organised in the current situation? There are still many restrictions on political debate.

To hold a referendum, both sides will need to be allowed to campaign for and against the draft constitution. They will have to be allowed full freedom to carry out their campaigns so that eligible voters get complete information before making their decision.

The CDC certainly will campaign in favour of the draft constitution, and its members will focus on its advantages and positives. However, detractors of the draft charter should also be given a fair chance to campaign for a “no” vote.

Another question involves what should be done if the draft charter fails the referendum test. 

Some groups suggest that one of the recently annulled constitutions – that of 2007 or 1997 (both abolished after a coup) – should be selected. However, that likelihood is only small. The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) scrapped the 2007 charter after staging a coup less than a year ago, while the coup-makers also view the 1997 charter as problematic.

What is more likely is that the constitution-drafting process will have to start all over again. New members should be appointed to the CDC and the National Reform Committee, in accordance with the post-coup provisional charter, to draft a new constitution.

If that happens, the next general election will be postponed for another year while a new charter is drafted. Also, the government, the NCPO and the National Legislative Assembly will remain in office for another year.

Would this be acceptable to eligible voters? Both options seem unsatisfactory.