Asean turning a blind eye to the junta in its midst

While the referendum passed off peacefully, with major political leaders accepting the public’s verdict, it should be noted that voter turnout was low at only 59 per cent. 

Given that the junta had targeted an 80 per cent turnout, the numbers suggest that the majority of Thailand’s 50 million registered voters were against the new constitution and either actively expressed their opposition by voting “no” at the ballot box or indirectly by shunning the referendum. 

Certainly, opportunities to express opposition to the draft constitution were severely restricted in the run up to the referendum. Activists openly campaigning for a “no” vote were detained by the authorities for violating the Referendum Act and face up to 10 years in prison. 

So concerned have the authorities been to crackdown on any form of dissent that two eight-year-old girls were charged with “obstructing the referendum process … and destroying common public property” for simply tearing down voter lists posted outside their school that they liked the colour of. In this climate, it seems unlikely that voters were able to make an informed choice on this crucial decision for the Kingdom’s future. 

The referendum results mark an important step in the military junta’s repeatedly postponed road map toward a “fully functioning democracy” and pave the way for a general election next year. 

But the criticisms levelled against the constitution and the referendum process should not be ignored. 

For example, the lack of public involvement in the military-drafted constitution was highlighted by pro-democracy activists. 

Among the more controversial provisions is one that sets forth an upper senate entirely appointed by the military junta. 

The referendum also saw the approval of a proposal for the senate to have a role in appointing the next prime minister, prompting fears the military junta will be able to ensure its preferred candidate occupies Government House. 

Previously only an elected member of the lower house could hold the office of prime minister. 

On the part of Asean, there has been mostly silence on the going-ons in one of its founding members. 

This may be explained by member-states’ longstanding unwillingness to be seen as interfering in each others’ domestic affairs. It may also be explained by the regional grouping’s preference for quiet, behind-the-scenes diplomacy that seeks to avoid embarrassing its member-states openly. 

Certainly the “Asean way” was successful when it came to Myanmar and ensuring it implemented its own road map toward “disciplined-flourishing democracy”. At the same time, it may also demonstrate sensitivity and understanding of the unique challenges facing Thailand. 

The Kingdom is sharply polarised between the red shirts and yellow shirts, was beset by violent political instability before the military’s intervention and still faces continued angst over its future. 

Nevertheless, Thailand, along with the other nine member-states of Asean, is signatory to the Bali Concord II in 2003, considered historic for binding members in a commitment to a “just, democratic and harmonious” community. 

The Bali Concord II was widely applauded for breaking the long-held taboo over use of the term “democracy” in the lexicon of Asean. 

Now, a decade since the Concord’s adoption, one of Asean’s founding members has fallen under the control of a military junta that has forced through a military-drafted constitution with no civilian input and after a crackdown on public debate and free expression. 

Asean must not turn a blind eye to what is happening in Thailand and should take steps to remind the military junta of its obligations and responsibilities to the Bali Concord. 

One concrete way of doing this would be to put the situation in Thailand on the regional agenda in a similar way that political developments in Myanmar regularly featured under dedicated paragraphs in the various statements and joint communiques from Asean Foreign Ministers Meetings over the years. 

Asean should start by following up on the short statement that was issued by the Asean leaders in December 2013 that called “on all parties concerned to resolve the current situation through dialogue and consultations in a peaceful and democratic manner”. 

An updated statement would help keep the spotlight on the military junta and put some pressure on Thailand to uphold its promise. 

Given that Asean’s credibility is in question over its handling of the South China Sea disputes, it cannot afford to give its critics further ammunition by failing the people of one of its founding members. 

 

A Ibrahim Almuttaqi heads the Asean Studies Programme at the Habibie Centre in Jakarta.