Take your pick: This charter or a delayed election

But last week’s development was intriguing. For different reasons, the Democrats, the red shirts plus the political party they support, and Prayut may have reached an unspoken agreement that one year from now might be a bit too short. If comments made during and after a crucial meeting last week were any indication, few appear to be in a hurry to put Thailand back on a civilian-led track.

It’s not that everyone has turned against democracy all of a sudden. What makes people dread an early election is the draft charter, which has very quickly turned infamous. The Democrats and red shirt-backed Pheu Thai took one look at the draft and felt chills down their spines. Mind you, the most vocal opposition to the one-year wait was delivered by former red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan. 

According to Prayut’s post-coup road map, a general election should take place early next year or in May at the latest. Nobody was happy about that. The red shirts thought Thailand shouldn’t wait that long. The Democrats thought one year was not enough. Western countries would send congratulatory messages to Thailand if an election were held here tomorrow. As for Prayut, the timeframe is a polite statement to the world that he doesn’t intend to hog the political limelight. 

So, one year meant different things to different people. Until the charter draft came along, that is. Now, one year – to the Thai people at least – seems too short. Jatuporn, Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and the Chart Thai Party all have this to say (in their own words, of course): “If we have to pick between this charter draft and waiting longer, it’s a no-brainer. If Thailand goes to the polls with this charter, all hell would break loose again, sooner rather than later.”

Prayut becomes emotional every time critics pour contempt on the charter draft. His frustration, however, cannot blur the fact that disagreements over charter proposals could inadvertently benefit him. On paper at least, he could start it all over again. A new interim legislature could be set up. A new Constitution-drafting committee could be launched. The only problem is that there are few “new faces” left for him to pick if he is to launch a new constitutional reform process.

What Abhisit doesn’t like about the draft has become clearer over the past few days. He said Articles 181 and 182 were big potential problems. Article 181 would virtually enable the prime minister to use parliamentary support to escape censure. It states that the prime minister is entitled to seek parliamentary endorsement of his or her work through a vote. Continued parliamentary support would effectively block a censure motion against him or her in that parliamentary session, whereas the unlikely case of parliamentary objection would lead to House dissolution rather than the prime minister’s resignation.

Article 182 could allow the prime minister to bypass Parliament and enact emergency laws. The only way for Parliament to block that would be to launch a censure motion within 48 hours.

Ahbisit is also opposed to the idea of having an all-powerful “reconciliation committee” that would have the ultimate say on who should get political amnesty. 

What red shirts and Pheu Thai don’t like is the “same old, same old”, so to speak. Having portrayed the Yingluck administration as a victim of political conspiracies, they basically cannot afford to back a charter born of Yingluck Shinawatra’s “victimisation”. But for the record, they don’t like the proposed origin of the Senate, the fact that an outsider can become prime minister, and other clauses that could “weaken” the party system.

Meanwhile general observers criticise the charter draft for trying to “overcompensate” in seeking balance. For example, the “too much power” granted the prime minister coincides with the alleged weakening of the party system. Future political parties could face competition from independent candidates, while their right to name high-ranking bureaucratic appointments could also be taken away. 

Last but not least, what about grumpy old Prayut? Last week he appeared to underline his stand on his original timeframe, but added “everything depends on the circumstances”. That could mean anything, couldn’t it? Is it possible that this charter draft was written in the most extreme way so that it would be rejected and thus prolong Prayut’s reign? He would respond angrily to that question on his weekly national broadcast and flatly deny it. But one thing he should realise is that this question has the potential to go from a whispered conspiracy theory to a buzzing speculation at any time.