Referendum would salvage some respectability for charter

The reason given for opposing calls for a referendum on the new constitution is somewhat odd. The previous constitution was approved through a public referendum but failed to win “the hearts of some democracy enthusiasts”. So, critics ask, why bother now?

The opponents are blaming the wrong target. The failure was not due to the constitution but because politicians believed their parliamentary majority meant they could do no wrong. They got greedy and roused the anger of the previously “silent” public. If they hadn’t gone for broke in a bid to get their de facto premier back, we could by now be the envy of our neighbours, instead of being the sick man of Asean. 

No, it wasn’t the constitution that failed us, but extreme political greed, which destroyed the constitution. But many of us tolerated the nonsense of the past government because we had a publicly approved constitution – a necessary factor in sustainable and stable governance. To see that a referendum is necessary now, the charter drafters would have to consider others’ feeling instead of merely dictating rules to us from on high. The current channels for input from the public are not enough.

Without a public referendum, one can state with certainty that the draft being drawn up by great lawyers will fail. Selected by the Army, the charter drafters are bound to be seen as non-neutral, so criticism of what they produce will always be there. A referendum, no matter how much it costs us, would give the constitution more respectability.

Songdej Praditsmanont