Charter draft needs fixing

Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) chairman Borwornsak Uwanno pins high hopes on the constitution which is currently being drafted by a panel under his supervision. He said he hopes it would be the last for Thailand. Many Thais also share his wish to see the new constitution as a permanent one without the risk of it meeting an abrupt end by a coup d’etat. What they also wish to see is a charter that responds to their democratic aspirations. If the political history of this country is anything to go by, however, the longevity of any charter does not depend on whether it is a good or bad one.

Since the advent of constitutional monarchy in 1932, Thailand has had 19 constitutions, including the current interim charter promulgated since the May 22 coup last year. Most of them were torn up by the military in mostly-bloodless coups. The constitution in place the longest was the 12th one which lasted 12 years and two months from 1978 to 1991.

But a charter which has served the test of time is not necessarily good, democratic or responsive to the aspirations of the people. The seventh charter which was promulgated in 1959 and lasted until 1968 had just 20 articles, including Article 17 which gave absolute power to the prime minister. It was enforced when Thailand was ruled by military dictators, Field Marshals Sarit Thanarat and Thanom Kittikachorn.

There is little doubt about the good intentions of the CDC under Dr Borwornsak’s chairmanship. But the belief that most — if not all — the politicians in this country cannot be trusted has led the panel to keep a tight lid on self-serving politicians.

Their beliefs have been translated into provisions in the draft charter to prevent politicians from monopolising the political landscape and enriching themselves. The panel also does not want to see a repeat of the political crisis leaving the country in a state of despair without any political way out as has happened in recent years.

Towards that goal, several democratic principles have been sacrificed in the CDC’s effort to come up with their ideal constitution. These include the provisions that the next prime minister needs not be an elected MP and can be selected from among outsiders to defuse a political crisis and that the Senate will be wholly selected.

The charter drafting body also appears to be indifferent to the rights of women for a greater political role. Affirmative action to offset gender discrimination through a quota system is not a new thing.

The male-dominated CDC, however, rejected a proposal for a one-third quota for women as a reform measure to give women more political participation. This led to the protest resignation of women’s rights campaigner Ticha Na Nakorn from the Charter Drafting Committee and the National Reform Council.

To be fair, the CDC has taken positive steps to reflect the needs of a more pluralistic Thailand.

Yet doubts remain if weak political parties fail to end political instability and what roles citizens have to ensure the senators from the community represent their real needs.

The public has pinned much hope on the charter drafters. Despite the good intentions of the CDC, the draft charter in its current form still contains several flaws that need to be fixed. The CDC should take heed of their concerns.

Several democratic

principles have been sacrificed in the CDC’s effort to come up with their ideal constitution.