Thai Govt Unveils Four-Pronged Defence Of Charter Change

[webfact]

CHARTER REVIEW

Govt unveils four-pronged defence of charter change

The Nation

Chalerm

BANGKOK: -- The Council of State will, on the Cabinet's behalf, submit defence rebuttals aimed at justifying the push for charter change, its secretary-general Achaporn Charuchinda said yesterday.

The Constitution Court has set a deadline of Friday for the government and five complainants to file written arguments for and against amending the charter.

"The government rebuttals will include four main points," Achaporn said. The four points are as follows:

First, the government contends that charter change is in conformity with Article 291 of the Constitution, which sanctions amendments. The charter rewrite does not fall under Article 68, which bars any attempts to topple democratic rule with the King as head of state.

The Cabinet has fully complied with Article 291 in regard to the charter rewriting process.

Second, the charter change bill has not touched on, or violated, any charter provisions other than amending Article 291 to pave the way for the formation of the Constitution Drafting Assembly to take charge of charter change.

Third, the CDA will comprise 77 members directly elected by the people and 22 members voted into office by Parliament from a pool of academics and professionals.

The government has no control over the filling of CDA seats as alleged. Furthermore the CDA is obliged to heed the outcome of the public hearing on amended provisions. The proposed amendments must not impact nor topple democratic rule.

Fourth, the charter draft will have to undergo a public referendum vote before enactment. The people will have the final say on the political system.

Achaporn said the Cabinet had extensively reviewed the relevant issues in connection with differences over charter change.

He quoted Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung as saying that the push to amend the charter was legal and constitutional but had resulted in an escalating conflict.

Chalerm urged the government to try and reason with all sides before resuming the debate on charter change, he said.

-- The Nation 2012-06-13

[Ricardo]

Fourth, the charter draft will have to undergo a public referendum vote before enactment.

That is the key IMO, this cannot be rushed-through by a swift Parliamentary-vote, changes to the Constitution do need to be endorsed by a majority of the people, some might argue for more-than 50.1%.

The problem might then become that there will be some attractive/intelligent changes, some more for which it's hard to make a convincing-case, and lastly the change(s) which are effectively an amnesty for the former-PM in Dubai. Will the vote be Yes/No to the whole package, or will each change be a separate vote, who knows.

If the people are asked to approve the whole package in one go, how strong will the opposition be to the sensible changes, in order to keep the Big Boss from returning or avoid an amnesty for people/politicians involved in the 2010 debacle ? If the PTP's very-attractive pre-election promises could only obtain 48.4%, on a 75% turnout, what support would their proposals now be able to gather ? Where do the silent-majority of non-Reds/Yellows stand ?

Reconciliation and practical politics might look for those changes to be approved/implemented, which can find general support in the country, while leaving the more-contentious problems to be solved at a later time, possibly by time itself.

[Sayonarax]

four prong approach? Am i the only one confused by this headline?

[Reasonableman]

Although some advocates of direct democracy would have the referendum become the dominant institution of government, in practice and in principle, in almost all cases, the referendum exists solely as a complement to the system of representative democracy, in which most major decisions are made by an elected legislature. In most jurisdictions that practice them, referendums are relatively rare occurrences and are restricted to important issues.

Advocates of the referendum argue that certain decisions are best taken out of the hands of representatives and determined directly by the people. Some adopt a strict definition of democracy, saying elected parliaments are a necessary expedient to make governance possible in the large, modern nation-state, though direct democracy is nonetheless preferable and the referendum takes precedence over Parliamentary decisions.

Other advocates insist that the principle of popular sovereignty demands that certain foundational questions, such as the adoption or amendment of a constitution, the secession of a state or the altering of national boundaries, be determined with the directly expressed consent of the people.

Advocates of representative democracy say referendums are used by politicians to avoid making difficult or controversial decisions.

Criticism of populist aspect

Critics of the referendum argue that voters in a referendum are more likely driven by transient whims than careful deliberation, or that they are not sufficiently informed to make decisions on complicated or technical issues. Also, voters might be swayed by strong personalities, propaganda and expensive advertising campaigns. James Madison argued that direct democracy is the "tyranny of the majority."

Some opposition to the referendum has arisen from its use by dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini who, it is argued, used the plebiscite to disguise oppressive policies as populism. Hitler's use of plebiscites is argued as reason why, since World War II, there has been no provision in Germany for the holding of referendums at the federal level.

Patten's criticism

British politician Chris Patten summarized many of the arguments used by those who oppose the referendum in an interview in 2003 when discussing the possibility of a referendum in the United Kingdom on the European Union Constitution: “ I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly, they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is if you have a referendum on an issue politicians during an election campaign say oh we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum. So during the last election campaign the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak. ”

Never-end-um

A further perceived flaw of the referendum is that, in some circumstances, the democratic spirit of the referendum may be flouted by the repeated submission to the referendum of a proposal until it is eventually endorsed, perhaps due to a low turn-out or public fatigue with the issue. This is especially a problem where a proposal may be difficult to reverse, such as secession from a larger country or the abolition of a monarchy. The repeated holding of a referendum on a single issue has been pejoratively referred to as a "never-end-um".

Many critics of the EU point to the Treaty of Nice's ratification procedure in Ireland, where the government submitted the Treaty to a referendum twice, getting the required "Yes" vote on the second attempt. This controversy was repeated during the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Closed questions and the separability problem

Some critics of the referendum attack the use of closed questions. A difficulty which can plague a referendum of two issues or more is called the separability problem. If one issue is in fact, or in perception, related to another on the ballot, the imposed simultaneous voting of first preference on each issue can result in an outcome that is displeasing to most.

Undue limitations on regular government power

Several commentators have noted that the use of citizens' initiatives to amend constitutions has so tied the government to a mishmash of popular demands as to render the government unworkable. The Economist has made this point about the US State of California, which has passed so many referendums restricting the ability of the state government to tax the people and pass the budget that the state has become effectively ungovernable. Calls for an entirely new California constitution have been made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Criticism_of_populist_aspect

[khaowong1]

Ok, I think, maybe a little biased here, that I am pretty intelligent. But if I can't understand what the heck these politicians are doing, how in the world is someone like rice farmer Somchai up in Udon Thani going to understand?

California is having the same problem. Some lawyer/economist/politican writes up a proposal to submit to the voting public that can't be understood by someone with less than a Phd degree, and not even by some of them.

What say we break it down into understandable terms.

1. Do you like Somtam? yes or no

2. Do you want your taxes to be raised? yes or no

etc., and etc.

[gand]

"Govt unveils four-pronged defence of charter change"

It does sound painful?

[FarangKyAy]

Ok, I think, maybe a little biased here, that I am pretty intelligent. But if I can't understand what the heck these politicians are doing, how in the world is someone like rice farmer Somchai up in Udon Thani going to understand?

California is having the same problem. Some lawyer/economist/politican writes up a proposal to submit to the voting public that can't be understood by someone with less than a Phd degree, and not even by some of them.

What say we break it down into understandable terms.

1. Do you like Somtam? yes or no

2. Do you want your taxes to be raised? yes or no

etc., and etc.

I quite agree, this method should have been applied with the initial referrendum as well ...

[whybother]

The problem with any referendum vote on the constitution, is that 95% of "the people" will vote without actually understanding what they are actually voting on - they will vote based on who they currently support.

The rest will understand what they are voting on ... and will vote based on who they currently support.

edit: 95% is probably an underestimate.

Edited June 21, 2012 by whybother