Maybe the case for why the draft constitution should go through a public referendum has been presented unintentionally, through various changes proposed by several groups. If those changes were accommodated, Thailand’s new charter would not be the world’s best, but messiest. And this is despite the fact that more changes are yet to be requested.
The Nation June 8, 2015 1:00 am
Referendum nightmare is something that comes with the territory
Maybe the case for why the draft constitution should go through a public referendum has been presented unintentionally, through various changes proposed by several groups. If those changes were accommodated, Thailand’s new charter would not be the world’s best, but messiest. And this is despite the fact that more changes are yet to be requested.
A floodgate has been opened, and this begs the intriguing question whether the much-advocated referendum could provide the ultimate solution. Of course, a referendum may decide the question whether the Thai public accept or reject the draft put before them, but the referendum won’t necessarily reveal what the Thai people actually want.
Formulating referendum questions can be a nightmare. If Thais are asked to simply vote “Yes” or “No” to the draft, an approved draft may not contain key elements that voters want. In other words, Thais may be forced to say “Yes” to a considerably “flawed” draft.
But if the referendum questions need to go into details, how much should they haves? A lot of proposals have been sent to the Constitution Drafting Committee and a lot more will be coming. Those proposing the changes can easily claim that theirs are “important details” that should be put before the public in a referendum.
Some proposals are related to electoral system. Others are on the origin and structure of the Senate. Some concern key controversial points such as the access to the prime minister’s post, which the draft says can be held by someone who hasn’t run in an election. Others touch on relatively minor, technical aspects like whether some articles should be removed or merged with others, or how the Human Rights Commission can function alongside Ombudsmen.
For the drafters to consider just some of the proposed changes would be a headache. Many clauses are related, meaning changing one could have a domino effect, requiring that many others need to be changed accordingly. The Constitution Drafting Assembly is by all means in an unenviable position. First of all, current or future proposals from key agencies like the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Election Commission can’t be overlooked. But then again, if changes proposed by “lesser” groups are ignored, accusations that Thailand’s political reform process is “undemocratic” will abound.
A referendum can court a lot of trouble. But things will be worse without a referendum. The cascade of proposed changes means many groups aren’t happy with the draft. Indeed, the abundance of proposals means the Thai public wants to take part in this meaningful process. Failure to take heed will undoubtedly downgrade the draft, especially if it doesn’t go to a referendum.
The large number of proposals, on one hand, makes a referendum more dreadful in the eyes of the drafters and the junta. On the other, it underscores the need for the final draft to get some legitimacy, which only a referendum can provide. There is perhaps just one option to resolve this dilemma – to allow Thais to vote on the draft.
Interim Prime Minister and coupmaker Prayut Chan-o-cha seems to have leaned toward a referendum, despite his initial, extreme reluctance. A year after seizing power, his path has not always been smooth, but what he has gone through could almost certainly feel like rosy when the referendum process gets into high swing. Having tasted glimpses of democracy, all its good and bad will come down on him at once in the near future.
