We want rule by law, not laws for rulers

What the drafters of Thailand’s new constitution – and all citizens – must keep in mind when scrutinising the just-completed draft is the role of the document itself and the rule of law.

The 36-member Constitution Drafting Committee last week submitted to the National Reform Council (NRC) a draft with 315 articles extending to 130 pages, plus a 20-page report on the procedure it followed and the intent of each article.

The NRC will spend this entire week debating the draft, with the discussion being broadcast live on television and radio. Academics, lawyers, politicians and activists have already begun doing their homework, and the initial findings are disheartening.

NRC members and citizens have expressed disappointment with the draft, warning that it is likely to create further conflict rather than bring about the reform and reconciliation promised by the military after it staged last year’s coup.

The constitution should lay strong foundations for basic rights and rule of law. Yet one of the most basic rights of the people has been cast aside – that of choosing their representatives to run the country. 

This right should never be denied under any premise. All those who pay taxes must have the right to choose who will represent them when that money is spent for the benefit of all. In this regard, no one can claim to know better than others, so the constitution must preserve the public’s ability to select en masse the most deserving individuals to shoulder the responsibility.

Thus, the head of government and all members of the legislative branch should be elected by general ballot. The draft charter denies us this right, instead proposing that the authority to govern and make laws be, in fact, ceded to a non-elected prime minister, chosen by a two-thirds majority of members of Parliament.

Nor does it give the common man the right to elect senators, despite the significant power at stake to control government and legislation. Instead, an entity, yet to be clearly identified, would assume the authority to appoint senators.

If the draft constitution is approved, of the 200 senators required, only 77 could claim to have been at least partially elected. Voters in 77 provinces would cast ballots for “selected candidates”. Another 65 senators would be nominated from professional associations (15) and from among high-ranking government officials (20), while the other 30 would be designated “experts” in their respective fields. The remaining 58 senators will come from a selection process that, again, has yet to be defined.

The constitution drafters insist, illogically, that some people simply know better than the rest what’s best for the country, and these individuals should have the privilege of pre-screening candidates for election. The reasoning is that “good people”, such as farm leaders and the keepers of “local wisdom” could never get elected to Parliament through an open ballot. 

We wonder how “good” or “wise” these citizens truly are when they dare not put their vision and policies before the people in a vote.

Such approaches counter not just logic, but the rule of law. Giving some people more rights than others is a concept doomed to failure. Concepts like these render the constitution a document ruled by law and yet ignoring the rule of law.

By the rule of law, all people are treated equally. Instead we are in peril of being merely ruled by law, as wielded by those who use laws as instruments to govern. The constitution must guarantee the rule of law, rather than being the law for rulers.