Now that the first draft of the 2007 constitution is almost ready as it nears its official completion date of Thursday, many people are beginning to compare the new charter with the so-called 1997 "People's Constitution".

While the task of comparing the two charters is daunting, it should not be left exclusively to constitution experts, for the whole nation will be deciding on the fate of the new charter when the first-ever referendum on a Thai constitution is held, in September.

The result of the referendum is expected to have a crucial impact on the future of Thai politics.

In appraising and rating the new charter, much will depend on the principles one considers important, and how one prioritises or weighs the many issues touched upon by the charter.

Die-hard pessimists, who hate so-called 'elected politicians', may welcome the new junta-sponsored charter as many new mechanisms have been introduced to make politicians behave.

But those who treasure the principles of democracy and human rights may reject the new charter simply because it was penned by people directly or indirectly appointed by the junta, which staged a coup last September, nullifying the 1997 charter.

Indeed, to many people, the context surrounding the drafting of this charter is as important, if not more important, as the content itself. These people would likely regard the new charter as setting a wrong precedent and aiding future cycles of coups d'etat, with the de-facto amnesty it grants to the Council for National Security (CNS), which staged the coup.

They will also question the process of drafting, where all 35 drafters were appointed by the junta.

Then comes the issue of force in the referendum: if the new charter is rejected, the CNS can legally select any old charter, and amend it as they see fit.

The junta also has not announced which charter it would pick if the draft 2007 constitution were rejected by the people.

The issue of an appointed Senate under the new charter is a crucial issue to consider when compared to the elected Senate under the 1997 charter, which was flawed and ended up allowing the wives and relatives of MPs to be elected to the upper house.

It must be stated, however, that some upright and independent senators were chosen under the 1997 charter and they performed their role critically against deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who came under growing charges of corruption and abuse of power.

Intentional or not, the decision to reduce the number of MPs and have the whole upper house appointed directly infringes on the power and rights of citizens to elect their own representatives - no matter how imperfect representative democracy may be.

Some politicians are already questioning the efficacy of numerous new regulations introduced in an attempt to make politicians less corrupt and more honest.

For example, while children of politicians will be barred from acting as a proxy to manage their political parent's assets, the transfer of wealth could easily be given to a brother, sister or even a cousin of a politician instead.

One should not be surprised if the future Senate ends up degenerating into a club of people appointed by generals and the powers that be as some sort of reward, or even perk.

 While more restrictions will be placed against elected politicians under the 2007 charter, senior judges will have unprecedented authority to select and approve commissioners of the so-called independent organisations.

They will also take some authority away from the Election Commission, given under the 1997 charter.

Many people may think judges are much more honest and credible than politicians, but too much power centred in the courts could eventually result in a possible corruption of the courts - and abuse by the various courts themselves.

Meanwhile, the military has not been touched at all by the draft 2007 charter and no attempts have been made to make them more accountable, transparent or prevent them from staging more coups in the future.

Instead, the new charter will make arms purchasing easier, as it stipulates that the state has the duty to equip the armed forces with "modern" and "technologically" advanced weaponry.

The hope that the new constitution will be better than the 1997 charter by introducing progressive property and inheritance tax, land reform, as well as putting an end to privatising public utilities and nationalising those which have been privatised over the years, was dashed as the ideas were dropped during the secret one-and-a-half-day voting and discussions by the drafters in Bang Saen, Chon Buri.

Nothing was changed in the chapter dealing with the institution of the monarchy, despite a call by one drafter to modernise the rules and procedures regarding the accession to the throne (Article 23).

The reduction of the number of National Human Rights Commissioners from 11 to seven, and granting judges authority to select them instead of an elected Senate under the 1997 charter, has also proved unpopular among human-rights activists.

The 2007 charter gives greater recognition to community rights, but it is too early at this stage to say how effective it will be.

Many of the 'good' aspects of the new charter will have to be carefully considered with

due stress on the wording, because a change of a word could make a difference between an effective constitution and a paper tiger.

Unfortunately, the 2007 junta-sponsored charter, instead of being a statement of intent of the highest ideals of the Thai people, has turned into a set of laws imposed by bureaucrats and traditional elites in a "father-knows-best fashion", in the hope of putting the political house in order.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation