Charter Debate Heralds Period Of Renewed Turbulence

[Lite Beer]

EDITORIAL

Charter debate heralds period of renewed turbulence

The Nation

BANGKOK:-- Ultimately, any drafting assembly will have to deal with the 2006 coup

Two days of charter reform debate in Parliament have done little to assure the anxious Thai public that the campaign to draft a new Constitution will eventually lead to political peace. If anything, the acrimonious showdown between the ruling Pheu Thai Party and the opposition Democrats heightened fears that the whole process is a road strewn with big landmines. When Parliament finally approves the setting up of a charter drafting assembly (CDA) as expected, Thailand can brace itself for months of renewed unease and concern about fresh turmoil. 2012 and next year will become another unpredictable period for Thai politics.

With the ruling camp enjoying comfortable majority control of Parliament - support from about 20 senators is all that is needed to pass the government's charter bill - Thailand should have a CDA around the middle of this year. If the government's bill is not altered much, the assembly will have 77 elected members representing every province, and 22 Parliament-elected drafters. The assembly will have around 180 days to write a new charter, the draft of which will be put on a public referendum early next year.

The election of the 77 provincial drafters and Parliament's 22 could create tension, mirroring that which preceded last year's general election. This part of the road can be bumpy but should not be impossible to negotiate. The real cause of concern will have to do with what the drafting assembly comes up with, or the proposals it considers. The most potentially explosive issue is whether the new Constitution will still legally sanction the 2006 coup, as the existing charter does.

The issue is symptomatic of the Thai political conflict. The question of how far we should go to restrain corrupt or allegedly corrupt politicians has for years been at the heart of the country's political divide. The 2006 coup and its legal consequences, such as political parties' dissolution, banning of politicians, the conviction of Thaksin Shinawatra and seizure of his massive assets, have been supported or condoned by one half of the country and strenuously opposed by the other half. Whether the drafting assembly will renounce or condone the coup, it can easily rekindle political strife.

The issue is waiting there for the drafters like a big dead-end. There is no way to avoid it. In fact, if the drafters do not touch this issue, the whole charter reform process will look irrelevant. In the eyes of critics, the current Constitution may contain other flaws, but none of them would require a reform process as big as setting up a whole new assembly to do a job that can be done directly by Parliament. In other words, the drafting assembly will be seen as making a mockery of itself if it side-steps the issue of the 2006 coup and its legal consequences.

The ruling party wants the drafting assembly and a public referendum to solidify the new charter's legitimacy. This process could also distance the government from any constitutional changes that could be viewed as being in favour of Thaksin. It is the only strategy to enact key constitutional changes that would not entail accusations of blatantly using parliamentary superiority to force them through.

The government's critics may say that using parliamentary strength to force the setting up of a drafting assembly is the same as using parliamentary superiority to directly change the current charter. This was the Democrats' main criticism during last week's debate. The government responded by saying the Democrats were showing contempt for democracy by jumping to the conclusion that the elected drafters will become tools of the ruling camp.

It seems that Thailand is rolling toward a new political climax. Whatever the drafting assembly produces or ponders, there will be repercussions one way or another. Will the new charter, therefore, solve our political crisis? The most realistic answer is that even the question itself is divisive.

-- The Nation 2012-02-26

[lungmi]

Every stable Constitution needs a supermajority (2/3) of Parliament and Senators. International standard.

I found an interesting link for this topic:

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/the-grammar-of-anarchy/

[OzMick]

That would be far too expensive.