Charter trickery: Democracy dodges a bullet

The authors of Thailand’s new constitution have made the right decision in barring appointed senators from nominating our next prime minister. The possibility of that occurring, which became apparent only after the August 7 referendum on the charter draft, had been cause for concern.

The drafting committee’s decision has thwarted an attempt by some members of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) to interpret the secondary referendum question far too broadly. In their eyes, voters’ assent to the question gave junta-chosen senators the mandate to put forward nominees for the premiership. As was successfully argued, however, it merely lets them vote alongside members of Parliament on the candidates for the post.

The direst interpretation of this misguided reading of the referendum result is that it was an effort to curry favour with the military regime, perhaps in the hope of earning Senate seats and thus remaining in positions of power. The junta – the National Council for Peace and Order – will appoint all 250 members of the next Senate, based on recommendations from a selection committee.

The worry is that those senators might then vote as a bloc to keep the junta leaders in their high positions. We have heard several post-coup-government appointees voice support for General Prayut Chan-o-cha to stay on as head of government after the next election, and some have even mooted the formation of a new political party to serve that purpose. For his part, Prayut, the coup leader and junta chief, has repeatedly insisted he has no intention of staying in power, but at the same time he hasn’t ruled out the possibility of being nominated for the post as a non-MP.

There is justified suspicion about his and the junta’s real aims. Thailand has more than once seen generals seize power with ostensible good intentions for the country, only to descend into the usual murk of political gamesmanship and corruption. They find power addictive and decide to cling on, heedless of the people’s will or the interests of democracy. 

Surely Prayut, who came to power saying corruption had to end and politics had to be reformed, will not repeat this mistake, no matter how many enemies of the Shinawatra dynasty urge him to stay on after the next election, if only in the noble interest of peace and stability. For every supporter with such beneficent objectives, there are others with hidden agendas.

The new constitution allows for non-elected citizens to become prime minister, but its authors’ aim here was to provide a safeguard to governance in the event of national crisis or political deadlock. Under normal circumstances, we should be able to count on the popular vote to choose our leaders. In politics, white knights are a rarity and reliance on them is foolhardy. Those who do arrive on the scene in shining armour to avert a crisis deserve our gratitude, but not our unwavering allegiance. The military has played its role, however uninvited, and now it’s time to begin trusting the democratic process again and to accept its uncertainties and consequences. This is what the international community wants to see, and what a significant segment, probably the majority, of the Thai electorate wants to see.

Thailand fails to make real political progress because its citizens refuse to learn from past mistakes. In selecting our representatives, we are too often duped by campaign promises that appeal to our individual interests and overlook their moral and ethical shortcomings. Individuals who serve their own interests in the short term hamper the country’s progress – and thus cheat themselves over the long term.