Excessive focus on structure won't bring us true democracy

For more than a month, the public has been inundated with new and unprecedented ideas about political structure by the new Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC).

Starting from an electoral system it called Mixed Member Apportionment system, which was seen by several political observers as a hybrid version of a Mixed Member Proportional system, the CDC a few days ago left the door open for a non-elected prime minister. What’s special about this proposal is that it can be introduced to voters in the five-name list during an election campaign so that they can see and consider first who would likely be their prime minister.

The CDC has come out strongly to defend its proposals, saying it wishes to see every vote being meaningful. Hence, complicated calculations to find the right formula should not be a big deal. CDC chairman Meechai Ruchupan even summed it up as a Thai-style democracy. 

“We [the CDC] agreed that it wasn’t possible to just follow or copy from Western constitutions. Thai society differs from other countries and we need to deliberate on how to make it work with Thai ways too,” Meechai said in the initial days after his appointment as CDC chief.

For over a month, we have been obsessed with the new electoral formula and political structure. No doubt, the reasons given by the CDC – of making every vote count, and doing what would be best for us – does make much sense. But I am sceptical about whether this focus on finding the most suitable political structure or system alone can make us a strong democracy.

Banjerd Sinkaneti, member of the Constitution Drafting Committee, which drafted the now-aborted first charter version, once shared with me the universal charter drafting principles. He said charters are generally written based on two key elements: the rights and freedom of people, and the political structure – which includes executive, legislative, and judicial branches. But that is generally for normal circumstances.

For countries faced with unusual circumstances, like Thailand, what was probably needed was people empowerment, or what he called, active citizenship, and the part to help guide major reforms and reconciliation, so that the country could have a chance to get away from the brink of a collapse.

His committee had specifically addressed the part concerning people’s empowerment with various mechanisms introduced to help accomplish the goal, including a citizen assembly in every province, a mechanism that was expected to act as a discussion platform where people could come and practice democracy in their everyday lives.

Unfortunately, his draft charter was shot down following some controversial elements, including the national strategic reform and reconciliation provision seen as overruling a government in times of crisis.

Since then, the active citizenship element has apparently been toned down in the new round of the charter. The CDC so far has not touched upon this part, but has been busy debating what would be best electoral formula and best political system.

The CDC may be judicious in following the universal principles of charter writing, but without people’s strength in “democracy literacy” to back them up, none of the most suitable electoral formulas or political systems are likely to be continued and sustained in the long run, not to mention whether they can help answer our call for true democracy.