‘Yes’ vote not a rejection of Democrats

The political battle over the recent referendum, which approved the constitution and cleared the path for an outsider to become prime minister, has had its share of winners and losers.
The 70-year-old Democrat Party, whose leader publicly declared his personal opposition to the charter, is among the deeply wounded.
In the run-up to the crucial political milestone that would shape the future of major political players, politicians and stakeholder groups all came out with their position on the charter.
The Pheu Thai Party and its ally, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, were united in rejecting the junta-sponsored charter.
However, the Democrats and its offshoot, the now-defunct People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), did not see eye to eye on the charter.
While former PDRC chief Suthep Thaugsuban was active and broadcasting daily on Facebook Live that he supported the controversial charter, Abhisit Vejjajiva raised some eyebrows by coming out against it.
The Democrat Party was rocked as its two most influential figures took opposite roads on such a crucial issue.
As it turned out, the referendum results have shown that the South, a Democrat stronghold, overwhelmingly accepted the charter with “Yes” votes being four times the number of “No” votes.
That raised questions about Abhisit and the party’s future as well as their relationship with the PDRC. It also raised questions whether the PDRC’s influence was exceeding that of its parent party.
Increasingly, it is being asked whether former PDRC figures should rise within the party when Abhisit’s tenure as leader ends next December.
In a recent interview with The Nation, Abhisit was obscure about the party’s future. Instead of defending the change within the party, he said people would not care about the party’s internal affairs but only about what it had to offer.
Though insisting that many former PDRC figures had held onto their party membership and that their ties remained strong, the Democrat leader of 11 years failed to assure he would still be in the saddle next year when the general election is expected to take place.
He also did not name any potential candidates, mentioning only that many former MPs were competent.
Though there are no limits to how long a person can hold the party’s top position, the organic laws soon to be written by the charter drafters might say otherwise. Abhisit still has aspirations. He said he wants to play a part in leading the country in the direction of his beliefs.
However, the former prime minister also said he knows exactly what to do if he cannot helm the Democrat ship to achieve its goal in the next election.
The referendum showed that the constituents of Bangkok and the South, the supposed supporters of the Democrat Party, approved the charter, defying Abhisit’s stance, and many are saying the Oxford alumnus is losing his charm.
Abhisit dismissed the notion, saying voters based their decision on a different logic when it came to casting a ballot in a referendum than in an election.
“A supporter came to me before the vote, held my hand, and said to me that she still loved me but this time she would vote to pass the charter,” he said.
“She said she would vote for me, [despite disagreeing about the constitution].”
Some of those who used to despise the Democrats, in turn, have shown approval after he went public with his dismissal of the charter, he said.
“It wasn’t about the parties or their stances. It was that the people wanted things to move forward quickly.
“I believe they cared more about the immediate situation than what politicians were saying,” he said.
“And it doesn’t mean they would not vote for the parties in an election.”
He pointed out that Pheu Thai won the 2007 election when a few months earlier it had failed to persuade voters to reject a post-coup constitution.
Abhisit remains hopeful that the Democrats would maintain their leading position in the House.
“Why second? We might come first,” he said.
He believes Democrat supporters have not lost faith in the party and also does not think the new election method, known as Mixed-Member Apportionment, would hurt the big parties as predicted by some experts.
The veteran politician believes voters’ behaviour would change
following the changed election method.
When there were two ballots, a lot of voters cast one ballot for one party, and the other for another.
Now, they would have to find a new way to make a decision because they only have one ballot, he said.
There had been many constituencies where the Democrat candidates never had any success but gained a lot of party-list votes, he said.
It is difficult to predict how they would weigh their decision before casting the one ballot they have – whether for the candidate they like in the local constituency or for the party at the national level.
Abhisit said the Democrats would rebuild confidence among the people that it had the capability to tackle bread and butter issues, that it could ensure stability and would not bring back the same old conflict, and that it would carry out reform plans.
Given the politics of the past 10 years involving rampant corruption, transparency should be the key to winning the people’s trust.
The Democrats, as a long-standing party with a strong structure and no prime financier behind it, had the upper hand in looking clean and transparent, he said.
The policies the party is pursuing involve helping farmers stand on their own feet rather than promise them wealth through populist schemes, he said.
With the strong possibility of the next PM being an outsider, that person should have support from the Lower House, he maintained.
The Senate-backed PM would find it easier to rule if the major party supporting the premier  is on good terms with the Upper House, he added.