Half-half ruling seems to leave the country a sure loser

The business sector said it was a win-win situation.  Your esteemed newspaper said the Constitution Court threw the ball back to the government’s court, which must make some tough decisions within the next few days. The red-shirt movement was unsatisfied and could not be expected to respect the ruling. On the other hand, the people who had been with and for the court for a month and a half also could not claim a total victory. They are bitter now and suspecting that some “hanky-panky” might have been going on behind the scenes. As a result The Nation said rightly that the court kept up the suspense, and yet you refrained from saying exactly whether that “suspense” would be good or bad for the country while the drama continues.

One positive note to have emerged from the ruling was the fact that the Constitution Court firmly established itself as the main body in interpreting the Constitution and this could involve all laws emanating from it. That is as it should be and the court did not need a reminder for that. But the court appeared to have dampened that significance greatly when it neither rejected nor accepted in whole the constitutionality of the amendment to Article 291, including the election of the Constitution Drafting Assembly. It should not be the duty of the court to “point out the hole to a squirrel”, as the saying goes.  The judges were there to decide it one way or the other since the Court was already the interpreter of the Constitution, and to do otherwise might have looked like an appeasement to all sides. This kind of decision is likely to prolong the conflict instead of shortening it.  When crunch time visits us the next time round neither the country nor its people are likely to get out of it that easily.

The verdict that was delivered on July 13 appeared to have been based more upon the political considerations than the rule of law. To be fair, the council of judges did not want to see the country on fire and we must be thankful for their good intentions.  But if some parts of the amendment to Article 291 were found to have been deadly wrong, the whole amendment should have been thrown out, though its proponents could have been spared. No one disagreed that the charter could not be amended, but to amend it wrongly would be, in my humble opinion, a violation of the Constitution itself. The council of judges stated earlier on that though no fire was yet to be kindled, prevention of that fire was better than to see it spread later – something to that effect. There is no fire yet but one side will definitely not let up. If they don’t do it now, when? And if it is not them, who? Meanwhile, those who oppose the amendments will accept the ruling, though grudgingly. They are now in disarray and feel that their cause is all but lost and there is no one on whom they can depend. They are now on “lost highway”.

Personally, I think it would have been best to have a total “Yes” or “No” from the court, not something in between that has given rise to perpetual “suspense” as suggested by The Nation. For if you try to please everyone, you will end up pleasing no one, and your efforts will be in vain. I can accept either decision, not suspense. Getting it all over with is what we should do. When the judicial bench was being emptied as the session came to an end, I felt great sadness in my heart. Those who walked away from the bench were neither heroes nor stars, as they left the country remaining as what it was before: a sure loser.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul