What's the fuss over 'citizens' and 'people' in the new charter?

But critics in the Cabinet and National Legislative Assembly (NLA) have taken him to task for using “polamuang” (citizens) instead of “bukkon” (persons). In previous charters, the term “prachachon” (people) was the all-purpose expression used, and it never triggered controversy.

Borwornsak is dead serious about the “innovativeness” of the new charter being drawn up by a committee of 36 “wise men” appointed by the powers-that-be. “People” or “persons” is simply too general and vague. But “citizens” makes a big, make-or-break difference.

“Polamuang”, he insists, underscores the “empowerment” of Thais who must, under the new charter, be considered the “most powerful” voice in the new political landscape – if the new exercise is to achieve its noble goals, that is.

The underlying theme of the new constitution, according to members of the Constitution Drafting Committee, is that politicians must finally come under the control of the “citizens”. They claim that democracy in Thailand has failed so far because one charter after another has not accorded sufficient legal power to the people.

But the term “people”, they claim, isn’t strong enough to underline the fact that members of society and eligible voters must now claim their rightful place in the political landscape. Where “people” have failed, “citizens” must step in to fill the gap.

Advocates of this concept may have borrowed the idea from the term “active citizenship”, a doctrine that stipulates that an active citizen must have clear roles in and responsibilities to society and the environment.

The charter drafters were probably drawn to the conclusion that the Thai people have over the past decade been enfeebled by so much populism in national politics that they have become “tools” of the country rather than its “masters”. In other words, instead of being “empowered”, the electorate have been deprived of the ability to think for themselves. They have been led by the nose by political forces, which used populist policies to ensnare them in the “vulnerability trap”.

Borwornsak and his fellow charter writers have vowed to return power to the people by incorporating clauses in the constitution that will put “citizens” above “politicians”, instead of the other way round. But some members of the National Reform Council, NLA and the Cabinet have found “citizens” an unfamiliar concept that conveys a new and perhaps too radical message. They want to go back to the original “people” or “persons” to describe members of society, including the 47 million eligible voters out of a total population of about 67 million.

Borwornsak has stood his ground. The use of the word “citizens”, he said, was in no way part of political rhetoric. His choice of words was, he insisted, “intentionally made to make sure that the Thai people know that they have the inherent right to dictate the future of the country, and are not just voters for whom democracy lasts only the two minutes it takes in the polling booth to mark the ballot on election day.”

But after all is said and done, the debate over “active citizenship” may end up being an exercise in futility. The ultimate test of the new charter won’t be the language that is used. And nor will its success or failure be determined by a national referendum, if one is finally conducted.

The new document governing national politics will be judged by whether the Thai people in general feel it’s time to take charge of their destiny, instead of allowing politicians to play their own dirty games. The new charter can describe them as “citizens” or “people” or “individuals”, but if the rightful owners of the nation can’t, or refuse to, make their voices heard, then both sides of the debate will end up losers anyway.