'Much needs to be done before referendum is held on charter'

“There should definitely be public hearings for people to debate intensely between those who agree or disagree with the charter, as well as through the media and forums, and strengthening of public participation,” Suriyasai Katasila, director of the Thailand Reform Institution (TRI), said recently.

Attasit Pankaew, a political science lecturer at Thammasat University, said the most important aspect of the referendum is the “ballot language”.

The “ballot” in some countries is written only to give people the chance to accept the draft or reject it, while others also describe what would happen next after people approve or disapprove it. 

Another important consideration is that the public must be informed and given time to study the draft.

When New Zealand tried to change their electoral system, they took a year for their citizens to argue for and against the changes and forwarded literature to them.

Some have argued that people should be given the choice between this charter and previous ones. 

The referendum campaign will also affect people’s decisions – if they understand what will happen if the charter is passed or not.

People have little information on how the national referendum might turn out.

“Right now the CDC (Constitution Drafting Committee) is amending some articles and there are many articles that I disagree with, but if the process reaches the approval stage, I will vote to approve this charter,” he said.

“I believe that there are no designs for the best constitution in the world, but I will focus on whether the charter has more positive aspects than negative ones,” he said.

Attasit has already looked beyond the issues of which people drafting the charter were appointed by the junta, or those who seized power.

“The democracy in this charter has morphed from the previous ones. At this point I can still accept it,” he said.

“In reality we cannot have an ideal charter because designing political institutions has both pros and cons, and I want people to realise that as well,” he said.

“The challenge for the charter is whether people can accept its negative aspects or not,” he said.

Weng Tojirakarn, co-leader of the red-shirt United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship, said the reason the junta decided to hold a referendum is that the “five rivers” – NCPO, Cabinet, National Legislative Assembly (NLA), National Reform Council (NRC) and CDC – surrendered to the voices of people who opposed or disagreed with what CDC chairman Borwornsak Uwanno has drafted.

“They’re cornered. Now they’re calling for help from the people through the national referendum,” he said.

Weng said if the referendum only gives people the chance to approve or disapprove of this new constitution, it would not help the country. The NCPO should give people alternatives – whether they want the new charter, the charter of 2007 or the 1997 edition.

He said there should be forums for people to freely voice their opinions on the charter.

That was because if the new charter was the only draft put on the table for people to vote on and it fails to be approved, the NCPO would remain in power indefinitely. So, granting options for people to choose could prevent this from happening.

“If the new draft is not approved by the people there should be a new drafting committee, which comes from a direct election. It should be elected within 180 days as a way out for the country,” he said.

Weng said that he, for one, would vote Borwornsak’s “ridiculous” charter down.

“It certainly fails in my opinion because there are many undemocratic matters imprinted in the new charter,” he argued.

The “outsider” PM, mixed-member representatives and selected senators were the most problematic features that would obstruct democracy in the country, he said.

And all of the new independent organisations – the National Ethical Committee, Reconciliation Committee, People’s Assembly, Reform Movement Council and eight other bodies – should be dropped from the constitution because no one agreed to them, he claimed.

Given the choice of the 1997, 2007 or this 2015 constitution, he would go with the 1997 version because it was much better than Borwornsak’s product, he said.

TRI director Suriyasai disagreed with giving people options to the new charter, saying the referendum should be on the new constitution only.

“If we are given options to choose from, the issue of why we accept a previous one rather than this one will emerge,” he said.

If someone sided with the 1997 charter, another one would doubt why the first one was not like the 2007 or the new charter, and vice versa, he said.

“The purpose of the referendum is to answer whether we agree or disagree with the question addressed to us,” he said.

“If there are options of constitutions in this upcoming national referendum, it will not be on the newly drafted charter, rather it will become a process of comparing this new charter to the previous ones,” he said.

Suriyasai, who was a political activist with the yellow-shirt People’s Alliance for Democracy, said holding public hearings before the referendum was more important.

Now a lecturer at the College of Social Innovation at Rangsit University, Suriyasai was concerned that people were not informed enough about the charter and the referendum process. “When people have little understanding, I worry that the referendum will be just a ritual. People who vote against this new charter might not truly want the 1997 or 2007 constitution. They might simply just want to oppose the junta, so the intent of the referendum will be totally deviated from,” he said.