Call for 'reforms before elections' forces a detour in PM's road map

If the proposal of a group of National Reform Council (NRC) members is finally endorsed, the upcoming referendum will be a very unique (and confusing) one indeed.

For one thing, the original idea for the referendum was to ask the people to decide whether to accept the new, controversial constitution draft or not. Now, according to the new recommendation, the same ballot in the referendum will also pose another big question: Do you agree with “reforms before elections”.

I am not sure how the questions will be phrased – a very sensitive and complicated process. In fact, it was already quite a tall order to tackle the first item. Now, a second question, no less controversial, has plunged the whole exercise into a new spin, which threatens to get out of control if things proceed the way they have been doing in the past week.

Pro-reform elements have proposed that the reform process should take precedence over elections and that a two-year period might just be the right transition pace. Critics were quick to point out that this might be a conspiracy to extend General Prayut’s term by two years.

The premier himself has been coy about it. Officially, he isn’t interested in holding on to power. But then, when pressed, Prayut had this very interesting statement to make:

“I am not pushing for anything. If I am asked to stay on, I will take on the task. But if I stay on, it must be because it’s legitimate, not because I want to hold on to power. You must protect me from [criticism from] outside the country and within the country – against allegations that I want to cling on to power. … I don’t want power, because I don’t stand to gain anything from it. I want to work to improve the country. But how to do that, I don’t know. It’s up to the Constitution.”

He isn’t saying yes. Neither is he saying no. But, reading between the lines, he is probably more inclined towards yes than no. And, after all, if things don’t turn out the way his supporters want, he can always say it wasn’t his idea in the first place.

But even those who publicly support extending his term don’t want to handle this hot potato. They aren’t going to put forward the proposal in any official way. In fact, they are launching a “public campaign”, seeking signatures from citizens to submit the big move.

But there is no avoiding the fact that, sooner or later, the issue will have to be tackled and a legally justifiable means will have to be found to push the proposition through.

Also, there is no escaping the fact that tough questions will have to be addressed such as:

1. Who or what agency is going to decide whether two years is sufficient to implement the necessary reforms to ensure that elections will be free, fair and democratic?

2. What guarantee do we have that the proposed reforms will be implemented?

3. What are the criteria of basic reforms that will have to be met to make sure they are genuine reforms that meet with the people’s expectations?

4. What if the voters reject the draft constitution but support the “reforms before elections” concept in the referendum? What if it’s the other way round?

5. If the “reforms before elections” proposal is accepted, what will be the role of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO)? Will the proposed reforms include transformation of the NCPO? In other words, which mouse will bell the cat?