A sleight-of-hand, two-stage return to ‘democracy?’

Critics wasted no time in labelling the proposed clause a push for a new form of “two-stage democracy” – if not “half-baked democracy”.

There was no doubt that when the Cabinet submitted its 16-point proposal to the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) last week, the last – and certainly the most controversial – point was picked out as the biggest “time bomb” so far.

This particular proposal was coated in phrases that could at best be described as “highly creative” – a linguistic innovation only a seasoned legal expert could draw up.

The key phrase concerned a special provision that amounts to nothing short of a glaring “exception to the rule” during the transition period to civilian rule after the next general election. To suggest that this could be interpreted as a move by the junta to retain power over the next elected government would be an understatement.

The official logic behind this idea was plain: The powers-that-be want to ensure a mechanism is in place to cope with a possible repeat of the severe political conflict that saw the country almost become a “failed state” before the coup in May 22, 2014.

Anyone who has been following the ins and outs of Thai politics long enough can probably guess who the author of such flowery language was. Part of the statement went something like: “During the transitional period – the turning point that deals with the life or death of a country – a temporary measure must be allowed where necessary in order to maintain peace and order.”

The Cabinet suggested that in the initial stage, shortly after its promulgation, the new constitution should not be fully enforced. It said this would ensure “stability during the transition”.

Then came the crux – and the most puzzling part – of the proposal: The upcoming general election should be split into two stages, with the initial so-called “transitional phase” covering a brief period of time in which the “exception to the rule” would apply.

What’s the exception? The Cabinet’s proposal spelt it out quite clearly: Only a certain number of MPs – with consideration given to a “proper balance” – would be popularly elected, indicating that the rest of the lawmakers would be handpicked by whoever holds power over the elected government.

The second phase would then be “in line with international standards” and would significantly reduce “constraints” on the political norm, the paper said, adding that such a two-step formula might help resolve the country’s problems – and could probably be explained to the satisfaction of the Thai people and the international community.

In explaining this fascinating course of action, the Cabinet raised the spectre of political conflict and unrest that “may be worse than before”. “A state like that is very rare in a foreign country and it is too difficult for other democracies to understand,” it insisted.

This was the last of the 16 suggestions made by the Cabinet in a letter dated February 15 and addressed to CDC chairman Meechai Ruchupan. The letter was signed by Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan on behalf of the prime minister, who was overseas.

There is little doubt that if the proposal were adopted, the most likely consequence would be that the new constitution, the referendum and the election are rendered meaningless. It would also mean that the National Council for Peace and Order, in whatever form, would continue to hold on to all-embracing power, over and above an elected government.

Other observers say the idea may stem from at least three objectives: First, the Cabinet wants a special body to deal with any possible crisis. Second, it wants “special power” for somebody other than an elected government, possibly allowing the military to rule in case of emergency. Third, it wants a mechanism to cope with any crisis and perhaps to rule over and above the government during times of crisis.

The devil, of course, is in the details. And the question that immediately loomed large as the proposal was made public last week was: Where is the mechanism necessary to implement this highly complicated two-stage return to democracy?

Deputy Premier Wissanu Krea-ngam was the obvious person to field this very simple, but serious, question.

His answer confirmed everybody’s suspicion that this was nothing short of the sleight-of-hand typically seen in a magic show.

He said: “Don’t know. Still looking for a mechanism.”