How the charter’s ‘Super Lock’ is tormenting politicians

And it doesn’t matter whether you have read the charter draft or not. Most Thais haven’t read it and few will have come referendum day. Decisions are being made based on political leanings. You are making up your mind based on how you feel about the military and Thaksin Shinawatra.

It’s simple, isn’t it? Trust me, it’s easier than picking a mobile phone promotion package. A lot of things come into play when you want to buy a cellular phone, like how many calls you plan to make monthly, what kind of data services you will need and whether you will want to “switch camps” in the future. Nobody switches camp politically, especially now, in Thailand.

In a way, though, the referendum is like choosing a smartphone package. (This is despite the fact that the military government wants us to think of the charter draft as fire insurance, in that we have to pay some money up front so that if something worse happens, we will be able to cope.) If you are familiar with selecting a mobile phone package – and a very crucial part of the charter draft – you’ll know what I’m talking about.

If the draft is accepted and becomes Thailand’s new Constitution, future amendments will be really difficult. Well, in the first few years at least. It will be like having a smartphone package that ties you firmly to one operator for maybe five years, during which time you can only cry if monthly fees become cheaper or other camps offer new packages that are a lot sweeter.

Analysts call it a “Super Lock”. To change the new Constitution, one-third of the Senate and 20 per cent of opposition members would have to allow it. Adding to that, changes related to the monarchy, qualifications of political office holders, and roles and powers of “independent organisations” must be approved in public referendums. And only one-tenth of MPs or senators, or both, can ask the Constitutional Court to look into the “constitutionality” of the amendments.

This is why my initial theory that the anti-military camp in fact wants the draft the clear the referendum is being challenged. That theory was based on a simple assumption that rejecting the draft would create too much uncertainty for comfort, while passing it would at least ensure a general election next year, which will push the military out of the way relatively quickly. The “Super Lock” scenario is casting major doubts on that theory, and reasonably so.

Politicians talking to reporters are questioning the wisdom of “Vote ‘Yes’ first and amend it later”. They doubt if they would even be able to amend the charter at all. When was the last time we saw opposition members backing government-sponsored constitutional amendments anyway? To add to that, finding one-third of senators to support amendments would be an uphill task, especially for the first post-election Senate, which would be made up largely of appointees.

Take away political prejudices, however, and the “Super Lock” is not too scary. To start with, it shouldn’t be too hard for sensible future amendments to get support. Moreover, it’s more democratic to allow the opposition to have a say on charter amendments. The Senate’s authority is debatable, but if its key role is to “screen” legal matters, the chamber deserves a place regarding changes to the highest law of the land.

Last but not least, amending the charter is a big deal, and it should not be the sole responsibility of the party government. Like the “Super Lock” proponents say, if changing the Constitution is easy and dependent only on the biggest party of the hour, then what’s the point of calling it a Constitution?

This is not to say that the “Super Lock” doesn’t have flaws. First off, it can give opposition members a blank cheque if someone in the government wants something badly enough. Could money buy constitutional changes? The answer is anything is possible. The biggest argument against the “Super Lock”, however, lies in the irony of its birth. In other words, can we trust coup leaders who tore up the previous Constitution to provide safeguards for a new one?

The latest information in the newsroom points to the “Super Lock” having growing influence on how politicians are making decisions. The “pass it first and amend it later” school is reportedly having serious second thoughts. And unlike you, who have made a decision based on how you feel, politicians need more time, not because they are ideologically ambivalent, but because they are still calculating. It’s safe to say, therefore, that for them the charter draft is more or less like a mobile phone package.