Without the rule of law, we are lost

I beg to disagree with your editorial, especially when it was pointed out that the problems we are facing now in our political situation are largely legal in nature. They are not, in my view. The problems run much deeper than that, or we would not have this great political divide today. And if the Council of the Judges in the Constitution Court takes the same view and proceeds to decide on the legal aspect alone, the problems will not go away and will quickly reduce the relevance of the court – indeed the whole judicial branch – into that of an anachronism. There are a lot of other implications that must be addressed as well, and if these implications are left out in the consideration, the judicial branch will cease to be a viable part in the check-and-balance system that exists in most modern democracies.

The stakes are high indeed. Whatever the decision, Thailand will not be the same again. Surely half of the country is going to be either happy or unhappy with the outcome. A split decision on this issue is likely, with one judge taking himself out of the forum at a most crucial time. Three others have admitted that they wanted out too, but were prevented by a majority vote of the Council.  But a split decision is going to satisfy nobody. It will be like shadow boxing in the hope nobody will get hurt, and will get nobody anywhere.

The situation resembles that faced by Abraham Lincoln when he had to decide whether the Union of states must be saved at all cost. And save it he did, with some 600,000 American lives lost in the process. Even Lincoln himself was not spared. But it did not take long for America to get back on its feet again. This is because Lincoln made the right decision, however painful that decision might have been in the early stages of its implementation.

It would now seem obvious that the Constitution Court has jurisdiction over the inquiry that took place last week. For if it did not, why did the pro-amendment group bother to submit itself to the inquiry in the first place? It is also obvious that the pressure being applied to the Council of Judges is blatant and tremendous. A leading member of the red-shirt movement has threatened that some 300,000 people will come out to protest if the verdict is not in their favour. Now, if a court’s decision can be trampled upon, then this is not the civilised country we think it is.

The Council of Judges is supposed to consist of men of wisdom and prudence. But that does not mean that these wise men are always perfect and infallible. Eleven years ago one judge admitted that he could not bring himself to vote against a man who was elected to his lofty position by some 15 million people. That was the turning point in Thailand’s political history and it has brought us into the abyss in which we find ourselves today. The present Council of Judges cannot afford to make another mistake like the one the court did earlier.

Henry Kissinger once said, “Heroes walk alone; stars derive their status from approbation. Heroes are defined by inner values; stars by consensus.” We will see soon enough how many heroes and how many stars there will be in this tragic saga. I don’t have any suggestion as to who will be the heroes or stars.  All I know is that if the Council allows its own conscience and prudence to point the way, Thailand and its people will be in good hands. 

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

Bangkok