Thai Charter Change Won't Solve The Root Of Our Problems

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME

Charter change won't solve the root of our problems

Tulsathit Taptim

BANGKOK: -- The question is not about whether Thais want a brand-new Constitution written by specially-elected drafters. A much-hyped public referendum will ask this particular question, but everyone knows that whatever the answer Thai voters give, it's not going to be the ultimate solution. You may say this is a cynical assessment and ask what then is a more democratic way to solve the impasse. You may be right, but you may also overlook the possibility that the current impasse is probably as good as we can get, at least for now.

The "real question" could be "Why now?" Why is the government risking not just it's own stability, but also Thailand's fragile peace, for a constitutional agenda that is unwarranted at best and conspicuous at worst? Whether Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva is politically motivated or not in his campaign against the charter move, the truth is, a new Constitution won't prevent potentially explosive street protests, or re-unite Thailand. In fact, we can count on the government's charter plan having the exact opposite effect. Opinion polls have echoed these fears, but while Thai politicians break promises for a living, the ruling Pheu Thai Party is not going to renege on one particular vow, which is to enact a new Constitution.

Don't let the apparent complexities fool you. Thailand's charter issue is a simple-enough story. The government, backed by millions of its supporters, wants to remove Article 309 of the current Constitution. They say this article is unwanted residue of the 2006 coup that toppled Thaksin Shinawatra, the patriarch of the present regime. Using its parliamentary strength to erase the article is possible, but that could be decried as abuse of democratic power. Having it done by elected drafters is much more preferable.

The other side says they see right through the government. They claim that suggested changes not concerning Article 309 are either a smokescreen or intended as cool-if-we-get-it-but-we'll-live-otherwise windfalls. The government's key target is Article 309, as it constitutionally safeguards the legal consequences of the coup, primarily Thaksin's conviction, his two-year jail sentence and seizure of his assists. He wants to come home a free man and get his money back. The current state of Thai politics is that simple.

You are paranoid, the government tells its critics. Assuming that drafters, who will be democratically elected, will go after Article 309 is extreme prejudice and totally undemocratic. And if Article 309 is really removed, what's wrong with doing it in a perfectly democratic way? What's wrong with doing away with what the "people" don't like?

Thaksin will escape punishment and that's what’s wrong, insist the other side. Democracy can endorse wrong things but there are limits to that exception. When democracy is used to paper over what is badly wrong, a big mess will ensue, they say. And we don't need to look too far for an example.

And the government has yet to explain its own discrepancy. On one hand, Thaksin and his supporters call for the return of the 1997 Constitution, but on the other, his camp keeps attacking one key essence of that charter, a check-and-balance system designed to be independent from politicians. The compositions and roles of the likes of the Constitution Court or Supreme Court's special section handling cases involving political office-holders have been subjected to heavy criticism, which has gone as far describing the system as part of an anti-Thaksin conspiracy. This is not to mention another core value of the 1997 Constitution, which balked at allowing people with huge business interests to lead the government.

What many have failed to mention is that the 1997 Constitution was born out of public exasperation with the vicious circle of political corruption, coup and bloody popular uprising. The checks and balances and anti-graft mechanisms were meant to solve the problem at its root, but they proved to be no match for holders of combined business and political stakes. In the late 1990s, it was a democracy that favoured a non-compromising approach, with influential figures like Sanan Kachornprasart swept aside along the way. In the early 2000s, leniency returned, and the rest is history.

Now Thaksin wants us to believe that he favours a return of the 1997 Constitution. First of all, he should answer this question: For a political system that lets the sister of a fugitive be prime minister, allows her government to implement all kinds of policies, empowers her to name anyone to head the bureaucracy, and condones moves to facilitate his overseas travels, what is there to change by the way? If Article 309 blemishes the existing Constitution, perhaps it's there for a reason. Two wrongs don't make a right. That's true. But one wrong usually leads to another.

Who will benefit from a charter rewrite? It certainly will not improve Thailand's education. Corruption in the rice price pledging scheme and other projects will not go away. The judiciary, the only pillar capable of counter-balancing political supremacy, is not going to get stronger. Schools will keep demanding "tea money". The deep South will continue to burn. Narcotics factories will go on functioning.

What some may get is a sense of having "slapped" the military, of giving future "opportunists" a lesson that they cannot mess with politicians. Is that worth rekindling ideological strife to another boiling point? And we can be sure on one thing: the best way to prevent a coup is not rewriting a "coup-makers' charter". We can write our own highest law of the land and put anything we want in it, but if we don't respect it ourselves at the moment of truth, don't ever think a new charter will make the men in uniform squirm.

-- The Nation 2012-12-19

[Thait Spot]

Good article well presented.

Just missed the point that this is just another station that Thailand's train to Phnom Phen must pass through

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[virtualtraveller]

It's simpler to explain the process to the simple masses thus; 2007 charter written with military pen, unacceptable to many. Result is political fighting. 2013 charter written with Peua Thai pen, unacceptable to many. Result is political fighting. Argue if you will about one being more backed by a democratic vote than the other but it won't make the problem go away. It will just mean that in a few more years a different group will write yet another charter with their own pen that will be unacceptable to many. Result - political fighting forever. The present climate and process proposed to re-write the charter is a recipe for disaster. If the objective is to make the country more democratic is will have the opposite effect because we can't agree yet on what is a balanced democracy. Need to get some compromise and consensus on that first.

[jcb2001]

Well said, true and to the point.

[Moruya]

It's simpler to explain the process to the simple masses thus; 2007 charter written with military pen, unacceptable to many. Result is political fighting. 2013 charter written with Peua Thai pen, unacceptable to many. Result is political fighting. Argue if you will about one being more backed by a democratic vote than the other but it won't make the problem go away. It will just mean that in a few more years a different group will write yet another charter with their own pen that will be unacceptable to many. Result - political fighting forever. The present climate and process proposed to re-write the charter is a recipe for disaster. If the objective is to make the country more democratic is will have the opposite effect because we can't agree yet on what is a balanced democracy. Need to get some compromise and consensus on that first.

I will eat a bucket of Som tum pla lah if as many as 20% of Thais know what the constitution says or what the proposed changes are or how it will supposedly improve their lives.

This is all for Thaksin, PTP and red shirts to clear their names. The Dems want justice to take its course.

That's why we have the hundreds of ridiculous charges against Abhisit - to bully him into accepting it.

Gutter politics at its most rancid

[valerian]

Well written!

[backtonormal]

Under the last constitution rewrite did the army absolve itself of any crimes under article 309 ??? including that particular coup. And if 309 is still in the constitution would it be possible for the army to coup again without committing a crime. If so I would suggest the removal of 309 is a must. The army and its backers in particular must be bricking it....its their only weapon

[whybother]

Under the last constitution rewrite did the army absolve itself of any crimes under article 309 ??? including that particular coup. And if 309 is still in the constitution would it be possible for the army to coup again without committing a crime. If so I would suggest the removal of 309 is a must. The army and its backers in particular must be bricking it....its their only weapon

No. Article 309 deals with the 2006 interim constitution and the actions of the 2006 coup only. There is nothing in there about future coups being legal.

That would be put into the constitution following the next coup.

[backtonormal]

It's simpler to explain the process to the simple masses thus; 2007 charter written with military pen, unacceptable to many. Result is political fighting. 2013 charter written with Peua Thai pen, unacceptable to many. Result is political fighting. Argue if you will about one being more backed by a democratic vote than the other but it won't make the problem go away. It will just mean that in a few more years a different group will write yet another charter with their own pen that will be unacceptable to many. Result - political fighting forever. The present climate and process proposed to re-write the charter is a recipe for disaster. If the objective is to make the country more democratic is will have the opposite effect because we can't agree yet on what is a balanced democracy. Need to get some compromise and consensus on that first.

I will eat a bucket of Som tum pla lah if as many as 20% of Thais know what the constitution says or what the proposed changes are or how it will supposedly improve their lives.

This is all for Thaksin, PTP and red shirts to clear their names. The Dems want justice to take its course.

That's why we have the hundreds of ridiculous charges against Abhisit - to bully him into accepting it.

Gutter politics at its most rancid

Gutter Politics...fair comment. Can I ask you what your comment would be about a coalition government created under army supervision in an army barracks. Where at least one party leader was made an "offer he could not refuse' to defect from his current coalition. And why you are on a roll, what do you think the offer he could not refuse was. That there is some good olde gutter politics Moruya

[rubl]

As usual, 2007 bad, 1997 good. Actually lots of knowledgeble people (lawyers and the like) seem to agree that in many points the 2007 version clarifies the 1997 one. Further refinement and clarifications might be in order, but a complete rewrite seems ridiculous.

The article 309

"Section 309. Any act that its legality and constitutionality has been recognised by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2549, including all acts related therewith committed whether before or after the date of promulgation of this Constitution shall be deemed constitutionally under this Constitution."

is a bit of a shame, although somewhat understandable. Mind you, General and MP Sonthi is clearly in favour of an amnesty push and very friendly with Pheu Thai as well. Pheu Thai the 'not about Thaksin' party which likes to whitewash all which happened since 2006, in name of reconciliation only of course. Obviously [sic] and clear for all to see that doesn't stop some from blaming all others

[waza]

The "real question" could be "Why now?" Why is the government risking not just it's own stability, but also Thailand's fragile peace, for a constitutional agenda that is unwarranted at best and conspicuous at worst? The answer is for the benefit of Thaksin and his red cult.

[jbrain]

Why they not just let " him " in again?

Chances are big that he will not live to enjoy his victory anyway.

[waza]

Why they not just let " him " in again?

Chances are big that he will not live to enjoy his victory anyway.

He is in self exile, he can come back any time he wants but there is a big financial reward for him and Yingluck if the charter amendment goes through.

Thailand’s Supreme Court, in a compromise decision that caught many by surprise, ruled on Friday that Mr Thaksin could keep Bt30bn of his Bt77bn ($2.3bn, €1.69bn, £1.5bn) fortune, held in assets frozen since he was removed from office in a military coup in 2006. “To confiscate all of the wealth of Mr Thaksin would be unfair to Mr Thaksin,” the judges said. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/64e44a30-22e3-11df-8942-00144feab49a.html#axzz2FWGtD100

Edited December 19, 2012 by waza