FRIDAY, March 29, 2024
nationthailand

Welcome to the reform merry-go-round

Welcome to the reform merry-go-round

Prayut Chan-o-cha is frustrated. Abhisit Vejjajiva is full of doubts. Thaksin Shinawatra must be smiling. But what do the trio - or, in fact, everyone in badly divided Thailand - have in common?

The answer is, they have no idea how the country should be reformed and moved forward.
Let’s start with Abhisit. There are good points and missed ones in the ex-prime minister’s latest remarks on the ongoing drafting of the new Constitution. Among the good ones are his concern for the future status of big parties, which he said could be held hostage by splinter political factions seeking their own vested interests at the expense of national progress, and his apparent support for the charter draft to be put to a national referendum. The complications, unmentioned by him, are related to those good points.
The status of big parties is more easily promoted on paper than through real action. Abhisit risked sounding hypocritical on this subject as he has been a vocal critic of how his rival, the Pheu Thai Party, went about flexing its big-party muscles. How independent members of a political party should be is always a question associated with political circumstances of the hour. There were times when “factions” destabilised the government with unscrupulous gamesmanship, and there were times when the public just wished party members had the guts to defy their own organisations.
Like many, Abhisit appeared halfhearted and didn’t seem to have a final solution. Empowering individual MPs can be good in some circumstances but bad in others. The same goes for empowering big parties, his included. In Thai politics, the line is very thin between voting with one’s conscience and being a troublemaker. Abhisit, of all people, can certainly acknowledge this. 
In stressing the need for a referendum, Abhisit noted that there was a Constitutional Court guideline reminding the Yingluck administration that it should consult the public before changing the 2007 charter, which the Thai people had approved through a referendum. Since what’s going on far exceeds “changing” that Constitution (a totally new one is being drafted), it probably makes sense to put the draft to a national referendum and keep the 2007 coup-abolished charter as an alternative in case the draft is shot down. Abhisit, however, failed to highlight the most crucial part, which is that the 2007 charter was a major source of national strife itself.
He did suggest that a major storm was brewing. But then again, everyone knows that there is no win-win formula in the charter reform affair, and a referendum is unlikely to convince everyone to accept the outcome, whatever it is. For one half of Thailand, the interim Parliament’s impeachment of Yingluck has cast doubt on claims the new charter is designed to bring reconciliation.
Abhisit didn’t sound optimistic about the charter draft, and his feelings probably reflect those of many Thais. But he can appear more complicated than most Thais, as he’s a man stuck between worlds, with stakes on both sides when it comes to charter reform. With one hat on, he’s leader of Thailand’s oldest political party, hence his concern that the “democratic mandate” would count for little if the new charter empowered small factions to rock the boat. His other hat makes him advocate drastic changes, ones that are impossible in a “democratic” environment. If Abhisit sounds half-hearted about the ongoing constitutional overhaul, his political rivals must be a lot more negative towards it.
Can he get the best of both worlds? It looks like no one will, least of all Abhisit. That shouldn’t be a problem if everyone accepts it, but broadmindedness will likely be a rare commodity come the new set of political rules. Thailand is testing treacherous waters, and the Democrat leader’s ambivalence towards what’s going on only serves to confirm that.
Prayut’s anger and frustration is probably making Thaksin smile. It’s somebody else’s turn, the man in Dubai must be thinking, to try to spearhead reform and come out in one piece. Thaksin’s “reform” plan, crafted through his sister Yingluck, didn’t live to see its doomsday, as the “amnesty bill” got there first, but it’s easy to predict what the younger siblings’ reform push would have led to.
Prayut has made threats, or so it seems. People are interpreting his recent remarks as a warning that if the current reform drive fails, Thailand will be stuck with him for a little while longer. “It’s me or imperfect reform: Make your choice,” he appears to be saying.
That isn’t fair, not least to Prayut himself. He hasn’t seemed to be having fun lately, so why such a big sacrifice? Most of all, Prayut should realise that the longer he stays, the likelier that future reform ideas will defy his ideology or even his existence. Reform is change, and change means anything in place is bad.
If you have read this far expecting a solution, I apologise. “Reform” in Thailand is a merry-go-round, and that’s it. Thaksin (and/or his sister) used to be frustrated. Abhisit used to be full of confidence. And Prayut used to be smiling. This circle, I hate to say, could last them the rest of their lives. 
RELATED
nationthailand