Don't let Constitution open loophole to a fresh crisis

The writing of the new charter is now in its final stage, with the drafters working on the last transitional clauses. But the blueprint slowly emerging from the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) contains details that raise serious concerns. Rather than ending the old conflict, the new charter could trigger a fresh one.
One major concern involves a provision that would allow a non-elected citizen to become prime minister. This is described by critics as a retrogressive change from the two previous constitutions, of 1997 and 2007, which required that the premier be an elected member of Parliament.
That requirement was reintroduced in the so-called People’s Constitution of 1997, five years after street demonstrations against an unelected prime minister led to a bloody crackdown. What came to be known as Black May of 1992 was sparked by a popular uprising against the appointment of General Suchinda Kraprayoon as prime minister by a Parliamentary majority after the March 1992 election. A year earlier, in February 1991, Suchinda had led a coup that ousted the elected government of Chatichai Choonhavan. The general had earlier made a public vow he would not take the role of prime minister, but then argued that it was in the national interest that he break that promise. Thousands took to the streets to protest his rise to power, and the authorities launched a crackdown that killed dozens of demonstrators.
The drafters of our latest Constitution have argued that the clause permitting a non-elected prime minister would only be triggered in times of crisis. But their failure to enshrine that caveat clearly within the charter fosters further concern. The worry is that the clause as it stands would enable wealthy individuals to buy their way into power, bypassing the democratic process.
Key figures in the government and the National Council for Peace and Order have dismissed speculation that the coup-makers might seek to remain in power after the general election held under the new Constitution. Their assurances have not been enough to allay fears that the premiership could come under the sway of powerful and wealthy individuals, thereby opening the way for a new round of political conflict.
In order to avoid that fate, the charter writers must make clear in the new constitution in what circumstances a prime minister from outside Parliament can be appointed.
Last year’s coup followed a violent political impasse that might have been avoided, some say, had we had the option of appointing a prime minister who was not a member of Parliament.
Abhisit Vejjajiva, former prime minister and Democrat Party leader, has backed calls for clarity in the new Constitution over exactly who would be empowered to appoint a prime minister and in what circumstances. He noted that crisis often arises in Thailand after the dissolution of Parliament, leaving no MPs to elect a prime minister.
The CDC should ensure that the public’s major concerns are properly addressed. The post-coup provisional charter states that the CDC should take public opinion into consideration in drafting the new Constitution. Failing to do so risks triggering widespread opposition to the draft charter, which could come back to haunt us should a national referendum be held to decide the fate of our new Constitution.