Draft seen as a flawed compromise: expert
Play
The draft charter might be seen as a compromise amongst the drafters themselves, said Henning Glaser, an expert in Constitutional law at Thammasat University.
There is no blueprint for a perfect constitution.” In the eyes of the German lecturer who has been working in Thailand for the past eight years, writing a constitution that would satisfy every stakeholder would be an almost impossible endeavor under the current political circumstances. But even to accomplish a charter which would suit the needs of the powers-that-be appears to be “a Herculean task.”
Glaser, who is also director of Thammasat University’s German-Southeast Asian Centre of Excellence for Public Policy and Good Governance (CPG), looks at the draft as a “dilatory compromise” rather than a solution per se. He highlighted the “lack of any efficient centre of legitimate political power” as the weakness of the political system envisioned by the draft charter.
“The power of the Prime Minister is designed to be considerably weak as is that of all elected office holders. Moreover, the charter would allow for ‘independent bodies’ to exert a significant hampering effect [on them] without accommodating the system with the necessary steering impulses. This, along with the governments weak parliamentary backing [due to the election system], would give the government neither the means nor the incentives to push through important legislation and policies,” Glaser said.
What is more, Glaser adds, the late inclusion of the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee (NSRRC), which would operate in times of political and economic crises, would alter the charter’s nature significantly yet not redress its weakness.
In particular, unlike “crisis mechanisms” in other jurisdictions where the government’s power would be expanded to cope with a state of emergency, the NSRRC would replace the elected government and legislature.
Glaser pointed out that the very low threshold for the crisis committee to take over power could be regarded as a sword of Damocles over any elected government’s head.
Article 280, part of the new crisis mechanism, stipulates that the NSRRC can consult with the President of the Constitutional Court and the President of the Supreme Administrative Court before taking the decision to intervene in time of crisis.
However, the decision as to if such a crisis eventuates the mechanism would be made by the committee, which is made up of 23 members, by a two-third majority of at least more than half of its members present.
Asked about the prospects of the draft, Glaser said it seems open to him. Besides the criticism voiced from inside the National Reform Council (NRC), its members would possibly also consider the chances of the draft to pass the referendum. In that case, the blunt rejection by key politicians and representatives of political groups from both opposing sides could make a strong point, assuming that voters listen to them.
However, Glaser said, with the government seeking to enable the country to move forward amidst the existing political tension and social conflicts, the decision might not only be made with respect to the draft’s content and prospects. For some “the journey might be the destination”
