The irony of the upcoming charter referendum

Most voters will be out to snub either the military or Thaksin Shinawatra, echoing their behaviour during the Bangkok gubernatorial election a few years ago, when the outcome mirrored Thailand’s political strife and voters didn’t even check the policies of the leading candidates before making their decisions.

This assumption regarding the referendum is not meant to flatter Thaksin, who has dominated the political scene for the past decade anyway. This is to say that the charter draft referendum will be little more than a political game. Many people have already decided how they are going to vote, though the drafting process is still ongoing. If you don’t like the military, hate coups and/or admire Thaksin, voting to accept a “reform” would be a betrayal of your beliefs. The same goes for the other camp.

But the situation may not turn out that simple. Like it or not, the referendum is tied to how soon the next election can take place and how peaceful the country remains in the lead-up. This presents the anti-military camp with a great dilemma. If you want to make sure that Prayut Chan-o-cha will have no excuse whatsoever for overstaying his welcome, the charter draft should pass. Things could go either way if it doesn’t.

Voting for the charter draft wouldn’t just send Prayut packing, it would also tie down one Suthep Thaugsuban, whose “reform before election” protests before the Yingluck government crumbled could be revived if the draft is shot down in the referendum. Suthep is a wild animal now temporarily tamed, so it would be extremely unwise to provoke and then unleash him.

A leading figure of the anti-military camp, former foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul, has threatened to make sure that Prayut suffers international embarrassment if Thai voters reject the charter draft. Here’s hoping Surapong was just talking from a script. If he was saying what he thought, Surapong needs to rethink, and very carefully. Who needs a new charter more – him or Prayut?

The truth is that the military abolished the last Constitution and can live on comfortably without a new one. The military could be embarrassed, of course, if voters turn down the charter draft, but Surapong must choose between a red-faced military that might stay on in power, or a proud military that has no choice but to leave the centre stage to people like him.

It’s tricky, isn’t it? In fact, the situation is so complex that it has spawned a weird yet plausible theory. In this odd scenario, the red shirts are desperate for an election yet can’t swallow their pride and vote for the charter draft. What can they do? They drum up opposition to the draft to fever pitch, hoping that the military will panic and thus do everything it can to get it passed and avoid losing face.

Strange as it sounds, the theory makes a lot of sense. It’s a win-win scenario. The red shirts will save face and so will the military. Nothing can prevent a return to civilian rule, at which time the Pheu Thai Party can start trying to regain political power. Yes, it’s true that the draft Constitution could pave the way for an outsider to become prime minister and allow military influence to linger on, but Pheu Thai politicians must have learned by now the virtue of the “one step at a time” approach.

What if the charter draft is dead in the water? The interim Constitution contains no clear directions for action in such a case. There are two much-talked about scenarios. The first one has all the contentious points removed from the referendum-killed draft and a revised version promulgated so an election can happen sometime next year. The second scenario has one of the past charters re-installed to, again, pave the way for a general election in 2017.

The problem with both scenarios is that neither will deliver “reform”. Prayut will have “wasted” his coup, Suthep will get restless and everyone else – the red shirts, the yellow shirts, Western embassies, you and me – will be staring at the very strong possibility of Thailand going back to Square One. 

This doesn’t mean, though, that the other scenarios will deliver genuine reform, which is extremely elusive anyway. It might sound pessimistic, but the truth is that a virtually unchanged charter may lead us to the same old mistakes, while a new set of rules may conjure up fresh ones.