Ask not what the Constitution can do for you

The problem has been exacerbated by a credibility issue surrounding both key critics and main proponents of the draft. On one side are politicians whose concept of democracy is limited to “election winners can do just about anything.” On the other are those desiring to “right the wrong” by applying a few “wrongs” themselves. The former insist you can’t revitalise democracy by killing it. The latter argue what is being killed is democracy’s impostor.

The Pheu Thai Party, Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck have come out all guns blazing against the charter draft. However, they are offering nothing new in its place. Their long and detailed criticism against the contentious draft can be summed up as follows: If enacted, it will be Thailand’s worst-ever Constitution and will do nothing but undermine the country’s democracy.

The criticism is repetitive but understandable. When politicians look at a Constitution, they see things differently from others. To them, “democracy” is about how much power “elected officeholders” or MPs should have, and there is little more to it than that. Politicians also have their own definition of “empowering the people”, which is why their preaching about national, collective values should be taken with a grain of salt.

The said critics apparently care too much about how a government elected by the people can be undermined or susceptible to intervention by “undemocratic” elements. They have paid scant attention to how Thailand might forge a democratic system that can truly defend itself against such intervention. In other words, the “worried” critics have neglected to offer concrete proposals for how Thailand should fight corruption, which has been the source of political turmoil and the excuse for opportunistic interference.

Anyone who thinks a good charter means a healthy democracy should check out Thailand’s history. Democracy can only be protected by the integrity of its own governments. It’s as simple as that. The “most democratic Constitution” can never protect democracy, or even itself, for that matter. Just take a look at the fate of the 1997 “People’s Constitution”, which was revoked in the 2005 coup but whose values might have been trampled on earlier by politicians themselves.

We can have the world’s best charter, on paper, but it can still be torn apart in the blink of an eye if politicians misbehave. So, the ultimate question is not how a Constitution should read, but what the likes of the Democrats, Pheu Thai, Chat Thai and other parties must do “for” the system. And what they must do is not covered in the charter. One thing that they must do is never seek a loophole to serve themselves and wrong the country.

Pheu Thai, Thaksin, Yingluck and other supporters of ballot-box democracy seem to think that corruption should be dealt with democratically. That idea is noble, but the truth is that Thai politicians have never allowed it to happen. A brief glance at the modern Thai history shows that the “democratic system” has been helpless when it comes to punishing corrupt politicians in power. The stark imbalance between the magnitude of corruption and the number of political officeholders punished for graft by the “democratic” Parliament tells the story.

To forge a genuine democracy, we must look beyond the ballot box and “empowerment” as it is defined by politicians. Genuine “empowerment” must serve national, not vested, interests. Voters should be empowered to judge politicians’ performances, but not whether they take bribes or evade taxes. When democratic governments are clean, or when they can efficiently eradicate or punish wrongdoers among them, then and only then can we put our lives on the line when someone tries to change the system.

Anyway, whether this charter draft will “kill” or “cure” has to do more with the powers-that-be than with the critics. The charter draft is strewn with controversial clauses that worry even neutral observers. For example, it would allow the military junta to keep a firm hold on Thailand until a new, elected government is formed. And even after Thailand has a democratic government, a powerful reform-monitoring committee, to be formed by the current rulers, could still exert a lot of power.

Will the charter draft be poison or bitter medicine? This question might be irrelevant if fresh turmoil leads Thailand somewhere else entirely after next week’s vote in the National Reform Council. The possibility of that happening, many will agree, is anything but remote.