Judging by the negative feedback about the new charter, the 35-member Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) has a lot of explaining to do.

Even though the draft is essentially a rewrite of the 1997 Constitution, hailed as "the people's charter", critics appear to view it as a completely alien document filled with politically fatal flaws.

The CDC has been arguing in vain about improved provisions in the draft. Counter-arguments on imperfections have gained momentum to a point that could see the document eventually rejected. Debate on the draft is expected to intensify next month and more damning opinions will be aired from all corners.

CDC secretary Somkid Lertpaitoon has already conceded that the first draft will face some major revisions after the committee factors in all suggestions for the final draft, which is expected to be completed in July.

In the run-up to the final draft, tensions will soar as concerned parties try to dominate the revision process. Detractors, meanwhile, may also exploit opportunities to cause trouble - as a way to "redeem" the reputation of the ousted government.

The new constitution is supposed to reshape the political landscape and chart the country's future, but some detractors appear to want to use it to exact revenge on the junta.

Before the September coup, a crisis triggered by Thaksin Shinawatra's leadership paralysed the government. The charter rewrite is designed to rectify loopholes in the political system that partly led to the crisis.

It is unfortunate that the CDC has opted to promote the first draft as enhancing people's participation in the political process because its critics regard the draft provisions as impractical, unclear and regressing from democratic rule.

Not many people seem to offer constructive opinions on whether the draft could prevent a repeat of the runaway power that the former government attained and what alternatives should be introduced if provisions are inadequate.

In an innovative attempt to pre-empt a crisis of unprecedented magnitude, the CDC has introduced a new clause to convene a national panel bypassing the traditional separation of power among the executive, the legislature and judiciary.

The panel would be made up of the prime minister, House speaker, Senate speaker, opposition leader, Supreme Court president, Supreme Administrative Court president, Constitution Court president and chairmen of seven independent organisations.

CDC chairman Prasong Soonsiri views the clause as a fire escape, should the system of checks and balances collapse - but his critics see it as incompatible with popular democracy.

The lesson from the Thaksin leadership prompted the CDC to devise the clause. Pending some wording adjustments, the panel may work and it is an exaggeration to label it undemocratic.

Fiji has its Council of Elders to mediate an unresolved crisis and the proposed panel is similar to it. But Thailand should be careful about possible side-effects from the Fijian experience.

The panel should convene only in the event of a real collapse of checks and balances, otherwise it could become a rubber stamp for the powers-that-be.

The other contentious issue in the draft is about the appointed Senate. The CDC wants to do away with Senate elections in order to keep the upper chamber free from partisan politics.

Critics are questioning the fairness of the appointment process amid suspicion that the junta might try to cling to power by influencing the selection of senators.

The CDC has looked slow in explaining its reasons for appointed senators and how to ensure they will be fairly selected.

When the CDC set out to

weed out the influence of party financiers, it noted that the party-list system of allocating House seats was a loophole that allowed big capitalists to dominate over politicking.

Surprisingly, the first draft retains the party-list House seats, which have been reduced from 100 to 80.

But it's a puzzle how the reduced number of seats via a proportionate vote would deter money politics.

For the direct vote, the CDC has decided to switch from single-seat constituencies back to the three-seat constituencies, used before the 1997 Constitution.

Charter drafters have yet to justify how re-introducing multi-seat constituencies will prevent a fresh outbreak of vote-buying, which was the reason it was scrapped.

In spite of shortcomings, the first draft is almost a mirror image of "the people's charter", with rewritten provisions designed to prevent tampering with the system of checks and balances.

Avudh Panananda

The Nation