‘Charter would create rigid society not responsive to people’s needs’

How do you view the new political environment that would emerge if the draft charter were passed in the coming referendum?
If this charter draft were to be passed, political parties would have the chance to form a new government and vote for a prime minister, but it would also open a chance for an “outsider” prime minister.
In the new political landscape, the two major parties would gain similar numbers of votes and seats, around 40 per cent each based on our statistics. No major party would gain more than half of the seats in the Lower House. The deciding voices would be the middle-sized parties. If they allied with one party, that party would win the House. Or they could reject both parties. And if that were the case, then we would probably not be able to form a government, allowing an unelected prime minister.

What about the period after politicians enter office and begin to run the country?
Well, if a government could be formed, it would still not be able to administer the country as it wished. That is significant because the charter draft is written in a way that would tie government up with policies and agendas already set, and the government would be obliged to accomplish those policies or it would be kicked out of office.
With such a structure, the government will hardly be able to run the country and respond to people’s wishes. It would lack dynamism in that aspect.
A country that is in crisis particularly needs change. It needs to adjust itself to modernity, but this would not be possible. A government could also be pulled down easily, whether it’s Pheu Thai or Democrat.

That means that you agree that we need changes and major reform?
I agree that we need that. But in a country where views are very different, reform can happen only when we have a process to facilitate dialogue.
But what has happened during the past two years, and will probably continue after an election, is we have been living in a closed society. Under these circumstances, true reforms cannot happen. Besides, those working on reform have not clearly shown that they have a vision to move the country into modernity as is needed.
Some examples include the attempted reform of the energy sector. Those supporting reforms even argued with those in power about the approach and in the end the effort was delayed.
In education, there has been an attempt to tackle the flawed administrative structure, but this cannot be called a major educational reform as they have just shifted power from localities to central offices.
At first we believed they had written the draft to block us at every turn, but now I think those in power have shifted their idea.

What do you think they are doing now?
I think their intention has shifted from targeting us to something else. They are creating a system to allow them to run the country by themselves. This charter draft is not just about its content – there will be several consequences following afterwards, be they political ethical standards to regulate politicians, reform acts or other consequences. If the draft were passed, other actions would proceed without much friction, as the referendum would be a sort of endorsement.
In my view, this is dangerous for the country. A regime and government that cannot dynamically respond to people’s wishes and the society as a whole will be living in a conservative world, going against changes and modernity.
The problem is, what we create will last for several years according to the blueprint laid down. Thai society will become rigid and conservative, not being able to adjust to changes and going against democracy.
In short, everyone would lose. Such a rigid society would only increase conflicts and in the end we all will fall into crisis again.
The referendum this time is very important, a turning point for this country. I think it’s better for us all not to have the charter draft passed – if it’s not passed, we still would have a chance to step back and start anew.

Do you think it will pass?
Considering the circumstances, which are not open to freedom of expression, I think it will pass. But if we had an open atmosphere, I think it would not because the whole content is problematic.
But the junta has asked why politicians like you did not carry out reforms in the past?
If reform means changes for the better, we need that, it’s not like Thailand has never changed for the better.
Political reform, for instance, has happened before. Our policies have also changed following people’s
wishes.
We offer policies and if people vote for them, we implement them. It people do not vote for them, we will do something else. That, in my view, is also reform.
Through this system, everything goes through checks and balances.
They think they should run the country by themselves because they believe people cannot choose who should run the country. They don’t believe in the system, and more importantly, they still believe that people cannot think by themselves.

To this point, what can Pheu Thai or you as a politician do about this?
We have made known our stance towards the draft, and from now on we will do everything we can to make people understand the consequences.
For me, I will also do everything I can to educate people.

Will Pheu Thai contest an election if the draft were passed?
We have not yet addressed that point, but we would stand a chance to take a step back. In the end, it’s true democracy that embraces differences.