Confused about charter showdown? Here's some guidance

It’s still a complicated, controversial, multi-pronged and high-risk political undertaking. The government wants to write a new charter, but it is also tackling targeted articles of the present Constitution one by one. There is also the so-called “amnesty” bill, which is being steered separately but facing resistance from the same opponents of charter amendment. If you add “reconciliation” drafts, which are not quite the same thing as the amnesty bill, then you’ll be as lost as a man in the women’s shoes section.

The government hopes to keep up the political war in Parliament, using superior voting power. Its rivals say that what the government is doing justifies the campaign to end the “tyranny of the majority” at all costs. What’s happening is a recurring theme in the Thai crisis. Stop abusing the mandate, one camp yells. Stop being a sour loser and let democracy run its course, the other shoots back.

The impasse is as bad as ever, and the government’s proclaimed efforts to break it could make things worse. The bill that would change the look of the Senate is apparently Plan B, after Plan A, which was to have an “independent” assembly write a brand new Constitution, hit a snag. So, if you feel like a man lost in the women’s shoes section, don’t be too hard on yourself. Even Yingluck herself didn’t seem to know which bill was which when she defended her government's reform agenda in Parliament recently.

Here’s a simplified guide to the constitutional showdown. It’s not comprehensive, but may come in handy if you’re an on-off follower of Thai politics wondering, for example, what the fuss is about over the Senate’s formation and the “overlapping” jurisdictions of the Attorney-General’s Office and the Constitution Court. 

1. The government wants to write a new charter, allegedly to take out the current Constitution’s safeguards for legal consequences of the 2006 coup that include Thaksin Shinawatra’s conviction in the Ratchadapisek land case, and the seizure of his family's assets.

2. To write a new charter, the current charter has to be technically abolished. But a bill to amend (and then kill) the current charter has stalled after the Constitution Court, acting on a complaint, warned that the Thai public should have been first consulted. The rationale behind this is that the present Constitution was promulgated after being approved in a public referendum.

3. While questioning the Constitution Court’s power to oppose writing a new Constitution, the ruling party delayed the bill (which would set up a drafting assembly supposedly independent of political influences). New bills were initiated to remove the court’s power to block writing a new charter and to change the formation of the Senate.

Why the Senate you may ask. It’s because the Senate is key to many things. In addition to considerable legislative power, the upper House has a big say on appointing members of so-called “independent organisations” like the Constitution Court, National Counter-Corruption Commission, the ombudsmen, as well as the Human Rights Commission. These agencies have been accused of biases and prejudices by the government and its supporters. 

4. Currently, the Senate is half appointed and half elected. The upper House was structured this way under the 2007 post-coup Constitution in a significant deviation from the 1997 “People's Constitution”, which prescribed full senatorial election.

5. Virtually everyone used to support a fully elected Senate, apparently for democracy’s sake. Now opinions are split. There are those who fear that direct elections would send candidates scrambling for political parties’ support and so it would be dangerous if one party controlled both Houses and monopolised decisions on who should sit in the “independent bodies”. 

6. As we can see, direct election of the whole Senate has pros and cons. The bill on the Senate’s formation appears to be a Plan B because, if the goal is to control the whole political system including the “independent bodies”, it will be a long-term process. First you have to have your people dominate the Senate, and then you have the Senate fill the independent agencies with appointees that you prefer.

7. This Plan B may not immediately remove the present Constitution’s Article 301, which protects the legal consequences of the 2006 coup. Only writing a new Constitution (Plan A) can get rid of Article 301. But the benefits of Plan B are obvious, especially if you are patient enough.

8. To give Plan A a fighting chance, you have two options. Either you directly defy the Constitution Court, which has warned against writing a new charter without first consulting the people, or you amend the present Constitution to make it absolutely sure that the court has no business giving opinions on whether adopting a new charter can or cannot be done.

9. The ruling Pheu Thai Party is (or thinks it is) capable of carrying out both options. It has enough votes to pass the bill on writing a new Constitution, and has readied a bill to remove the court’s power to block writing a new charter. As with many things in Thai politics, though, what is numerically and parliamentarily possible does not guarantee success. 

10. What is Plan C? The so-called reconciliation bill(s) could be it, but might need to be combined with the amnesty bill to have full effect. The reconciliation and amnesty scheme is probably the shortest cut if the goal is to bring Thaksin back and return his money. This short cut, however, presents what could be the biggest danger. Again, the government has numerical power in Parliament to make it happen, but if things were that simple, it would have happened a long time ago. 

11. There is a Plan D, of course: dissolution of the House. This weird scenario has it that if all else fails, the government will seek a new mandate so that it can come back and be accused of abusing it again. But if you think that only this “D for Dissolution” will get us back to Square One, you’re probably underestimating the other plans. They all – in their own way – are capable of taking us back in time.

Note: Forgive me if this step-by-step guide sounds a bit cynical. The proposed constitutional changes are cynical to begin with. Aren’t they?