Without ethics, we are chained to the law

The charter drafters have finished their work, coming up with a constitutional framework that will please a few and yet certainly upset many. The contentment and dissatisfaction will toe their respective political lines, a situation that’s bound to hamper attempts to effect national reform. The draft, if approved, will most likely let the strife simmer, even if a new set of rules temporarily keeps certain problems at bay, along with the individuals deemed problematic.

In the final analysis, our much-vaunted and much-taunted reform will have to depend heavily on issues of legality – the drafters hope legal measures will cure Thailand’s ills. The approach works well in countries not as divided as ours. Thailand’s ailments, however, are deeply rooted and divisive and, ironically, many of do come down to issues of legality. And, anyway, trying to resolve disputes that stem from poor enforcement of the law by tightening the law is worryingly complicated. 

The draft will go to a national referendum in four or five months. Last year another draft was killed, purportedly on the grounds that Thailand, being divided and susceptible to political violence, was not yet ready for its particular list of prescriptions. Perhaps that assumption was correct, but the fact remains that citizens still differ on the relative importance of the rule of law. We assess high-profile court verdicts differently according to our ideological leanings. 

And it almost goes without saying that the justice system is itself at least partly to blame for the scepticism and outright prejudice that greet its decisions. While some citizens regard the judges as saviours, others see them as destroyers. An agreed sense of legality has yet to cohere in Thailand. 

Worse, ethics – regarded in more advanced societies as even more crucial than legality – has even a gloomier future here. Ethics has traditionally been given short shrift in Thailand, conveyed in neither home nor school and rarely found in public life, and our social problems accumulate as a result. This refusal to behave ethically could explain why legal means have always to be employed to keep citizens in line, to get rid of political scoundrels, and to keep society from descending into chaos. Given a solid ethical base, Thailand wouldn't be where it is now. There would be less violence and less distortion of the law for personal gain or revenge. There would be no need for a new constitution every few years.

To cultivate good ethics is to forge a common national conscience. It’s an admirable goal, of course, but the path is daunting. Nevertheless, genuine reform should mainly entail common values and less so matters of legality. And, moreover, as difficult as it is to revamp national values, it would be harder still by legal means alone.

The charter draft, sent to the interim government a few days ago for approval, is really nothing more than a set of rules, some old and some new but all, collectively, representing our reliance on legality. Does Thailand really need new rules? Or do we simply need a fundamental change in mindset, so that, for example, a court verdict on a popular TV journalist, or the loss of innocent lives in political violence, are received and accepted by all without moral umbrage or political fury?

The draft constitution is another triumph of legality over morality. The optimists among us suggest we give it a chance to bring about improvements. The pessimists fret that the sickening merry-go-round will only continue.