It appears time is not on the side of the constitution drafters as they try to keep up with the six-month artificial deadline set by the ruling junta, jeopardising the charter during the referendum set for later this year.

Complaints have been made about the lack of adequate time by both outsiders and the drafters themselves.

On Monday, Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) member Chirmsak Pinthong who's in charge of collating the public's views on what they wish to see included in the new charter, made it clear to his colleagues that he's running against time, especially when it comes to collecting qualitative data.

The committee is appointing mostly outsiders for the task of running the provincial hearings sub-committee, a risky task, given that if the wrong people - that is, people only interested in the prestige of the position - are named, then the public's voice and concerns at the local level may never reach the drafters.

Chirmsak said local people were already concerned about whether their views would ever trickle up to the drafters, and if so, will they be seriously considered.

Even the drafters themselves have decided to turn down an offer made by the National Human Rights Commission to present its own gathering of public views, along with the commission's own ideas about how the new charter should look.

Constitution Drafting Committee (DCC) chairman Prasong Soonsiri said on Tuesday that he and the 35 charter writers simply have no time to meet the Human Rights Commission, but would welcome any report submitted by them.

But whether Prasong and charter writers will read, or have time to read, the report along with the growing number of other reports, suggestions, petitions and demands made by growing number of interest groups or not is another matter.

And yesterday, even a charter drafter complained during the meeting that if drafters themselves don't even have enough time to espouse and debate their views, why are they even doing what they're supposed to be doing to begin with.

Those with connections and influence may be able to meet Prasong and express their views or demands, but many other groups simply can't.

All this has raised the question of what the "people's participation" in the drafting process is all about. Is it just about some selected local people answering 35 questions set by the draft writers and the drafting assembly - or more? And if it's more, what should it be like?

In a way, the six-month timetable set up by the junta is very artificial, especially considering the fact that the kingdom has already had 17 constitutions in less than eight decades. So it's seems entirely valid for people to ask: What's the big rush?

In fact, some are even contemplating drafting charter number 19 instead of the number 18 currently being drafted. They will simply bypass the current one, reasoning that a junta-sponsored charter would not likely last for too long.

At least they have statistics on their side.

In the big rush to present the first draft by April 19, some charter writers are determined to take matters in their hands and mould the drafters in the way they see best.

A few charter drafters who may truly want to listen to the public appear to be in the minority, while those drafters with set agendas of how they wish to see the new charter are currently doing their best to influence the views of their fellow charter writers.

At least one writer openly expressed his dismay for the 1997 constitution, blaming it for all the evil - and alleged evil - under Thaksin Shinawatra's regime. The very same charter drafter also cast doubt about the qualifications of most charter drafters, themselves.

Such attitudes cannot bode well for any public participation. What's more, the charter writers are running the risk of creating more problems than they will ever solve if they fail to engage the public in any meaningful sense - even in the limited time given. Failing to do so will only result in another junta-sponsored charter consigned to the dustbin of history in due time. 

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation