Our 'Best Charter' Will Remain A Thing Of The Past: Thai Opinion

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME

Our 'best charter' will remain a thing of the past

Tulsathit Taptim

Although it came into existence in 1997, the "People's Constitution", or its "spirit" to be exact, will continue to stay ahead of its time.

The now-defunct charter was like an ultra-smart mobile phone - it was meant to "connect" but somehow was misused so badly that those possessing it ended up being isolated. Reviving that Constitution would not make any difference. Thais will continue to be the chicken that unearths a gemstone.

Most of those clamouring for the charter's revival may simply want to give the 2006 coup-makers a big slap in the face. Or they may want to romanticise a political cause a little bit. Some may just think it's trendy. Others may not even know exactly what they wish for.

Truth is, the "People's Constitution" was not designed to be a symbolic triumph of democracy over dictatorship. It was not intended to be a trophy on the shelf, something one could look at to have good, old, victorious days flashed back. The 1997 charter needed nurturing, but at the same time it was a most fragile political organism. You forgot to take care of it for a day and it would die. Expose it to a slightly polluted environment and it would be gone.

Thaksin Shinawatra, who publicly loves this charter to bits, is by no means its sincerest advocate. That's one of the biggest ironies of this country's political crisis. After attempts to impose the 1997 Constitution's will on him triggered a chain of events leading to the existing political divide, now his closest aides are saying that resuscitating the coup-abolished charter could help bring reconciliation to Thailand.

To add to the charter's myth, the latest Abac poll has shown that the Thai public is almost evenly split on the proposed reinstatement of the 1997 Constitution. The poll says 38.4 per cent of 1,994 respondents disagree with the reintroduction but would not rally against attempts to revive it, while 9.2 per cent disagree and would protest against it.

Of the respondents, 35.2 per cent agree with the proposed reinstatement but would not rally in its support, while 17.2 per cent would campaign to bring that Constitution back. Are we seeing the charter differently, or has the charter become what we made it up to be, not what it's supposed to be?

True advocates of the 1997 charter used to quip that Thailand was not ready for it yet. In many ways, that was not an overstatement. The check and balance mechanisms, as well as safeguards against corruption, proscribed in that Constitution were hailed by everyone but politicians. People with good memories will remember that rigid constitutional restrictions on shareholdings were decried as a trap intended to block one political rising star and telecom tycoon named Thaksin Shinawatra.

That charter had other strong points, remarkably its promotion of civil liberty, human rights and participatory politics. But firm, intricate measures against corruption formed its very soul. For decades, political graft had undermined Thai democracy and courted opportunistic military intervention. The "People's Constitution" was considered Thailand's new hope, a corruption-eradicating tool that could clear the path for a fledging democracy.

The charter's alarm bell rang when someone who had tens of billions of baht of vested interests in telecom businesses was allowed to wear another hat - as one who decided which way the industry went, and who regulated its course. And this man came with fishy baggage as well. He wasn't being totally honest about how much of a stake he had in his own empire, which was listed on the stock market.

If Thaksin had really understood this charter, he would have turned away from politics at that time. Instead, he created the impression that the Constitution was being abused to stop a patriotic business tycoon on the fast political track. The rest is history. And just as his aides were still singing the 1997 Constitution's praises, he was in Burma a few days ago, meeting all the people that matter when it comes to future business cooperation with Thailand.

What message is Thaksin trying to send? That the 1997 charter is the best but for its regulations against possible conflicts of interest or other measures designed to pre-empt corruption? Make no mistake here. Politicians, especially those in power, are allowed to do what he did - pursue deals that could benefit their countries. But as far as Thaksin goes, questions will continue to hang over his head about what motivated him - national interest or his own?

If Thaksin keeps asking "What's wrong with that?" at least he should do the 1997 Constitution some favours. He should let it rest in peace.

-- The Nation 2011-12-21

[virtualtraveller]

Very good article that gets to the heart of the matter. What use is a great constitution when the enforcement of it is so unreliable, and setting the example should be our politicians but instead they abuse it, most of them do, but Thaksin was one of the worst and most untouchable which is why a lot of people are so anti him. Of course this would all be beyond the understanding of your average voter.