New charter will mark a return to ‘hybrid democracy’

Hybrid democracy, he said, was a mixture of authoritarianism and democracy as seen many times in Thai politics.

In the big picture, the politics will be similar to the 1968 Thanom Kittikachorn era, he said at a symposium titled “Significance and Directions of Thai Politics after the Referendum”, at Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Political Science yesterday.

Thanom came to power and became prime minister in 1963, reappointed himself PM after an election in 1969, and staged a coup against his own government in 1971 to retain power. The field marshal was in power as PM for 10 years.

Surachart explained that the additional question that passed Sunday’s referendum was in part bringing the country back to the pre-1992 phase.

At that time, the prime minister was not an MP, which finally prompted the “Black May” uprising.

The constitution draft was similar to the 1978 constitution, he said. The era was called “quasi-democracy”.

Surachart called the current situation facing the country after the referendum: “Democracy on an Unpaved Road”.

Apart from that, the referendum results also show how the conservatives are making a comeback and beating democratic forces, going in the opposite direction from the rest of the world, he said.

The democratic trend worldwide is getting very strong with only three countries, including Thailand, in the past 10 years encountering successful coup d’etats, he said.

Thailand, more than the others, has had two power seizures in the last decade. Surachart explained that it was because the conservatives had been rebuilt and strengthened by strong political propaganda. He added Sunday’s referendum in which the junta-backed charter was approved was not a victory for the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) but for conservatives who did not like politicians and elections.

However, the expert encouraged pro-democracy people not to be disheartened. “It is just that the democratic wing is not strong enough for now,” he said.

Siripan Noksuan Sawasdee, a political scientist also from Chulalongkorn University, said it was likely that the people would always vote to approve whatever question was posed in a referendum.

The culture is mostly dominated by submissive conservatives who do not like disorder and would always comply with the state, she explained.

While many pro-democracy figures were complaining that the anti-charter camp did not have the same opportunity to campaign when the state had resources to promote the draft, Siripan said the state mechanism should be looked at in a broader way.

“The state has the capability to send different messages to different groups be it the urban middle class or rural farmers. And these messages have been sent very effectively,” the expert said. “Those in the rural areas would receive the message on how voting for the charter would bring about an election. Meanwhile, those in the urban areas would hear about order and peace.”

She said irrespective of who was in power, the state would always win a referendum because of the nature of the people.

Looking ahead to the future, Siripan said the organic laws should be in focus, especially now that the news of resetting politics were circulating.

“If all parties are wiped out, it will be very easy for politicians to regroup. We will see new parties including ones like the one Paiboon [Nititawan] is trying to promote,” the political scientist said. “And only 125 MPs together with 250 senators could successfully select a prime minister.”

She added that 125 MPs were not hard to obtain given the new electoral system, which would allow ballots to be counted towards party-list MPs.

Siripan said the two big parties must cooperate to redirect future politics.

Constitutional law expert Pornson Liengboonlertchai, meanwhile, said the 2016 constitution may not live long.

He said in modern days, the supreme law tended to have a shorter life because it could not keep pace with the fast-paced changes of society. To fix the problem, Pornson pointed out that charter amendment should not be made difficult or it would not be able to keep up with society’s pace.

Also, he said constitutions usually live shorter than their prototype. For Thailand, Pornson said the prototype was the 1997 Constitution. Its successors borrowed a lot of most of the political structure such as the independent agencies from it, he added.

He said the 1997 charter lived for nine years and the 2007 had seven years of longevity. It was highly possible that the 2016 constitution would last five years, unless amending the charter was made easier, the expert said.