• 
• 

Published on July 12, 2007

Instead, it's a question that I would rather respond to by asking another question: "What will happen if the majority of voters vote 'No' on August 19 to reject the constitution draft?"

My favourite answer is a question of my own: "What will happen if the majority of voters vote 'Yes' on August 19?"

And I am glad to say that after much heart-wrenching and soul-searching the simple, true answer to both questions is "Nothing. Nothing catastrophic will happen".

Yes, that's correct. Nothing will happen either way. That's because democracy is about choice, isn't it? And choice means going along with a certain idea or going against another.

Why then have we poor Thais been subjected to a barrage of campaign slogans from both sides - one side screaming "No! Absolutely No!" and the other "Yes, Yes, Yes" - and told that if we don't jump onto their respective bandwagon then we'll end up feeling inexcusably guilty or unforgivably unpatriotic?

That's because both sides assume - I hope wrongly - that they can ride roughshod over us. Or perhaps they think they can catch us with one hand in the cookie jar for siding with what they consider to be politically unpardonable elements.

Both sides suffer from the same questionable tactics: they refuse to engage us in an in-depth discussion of real substance - the political "innards" of the charter draft. Instead, they have resorted to insinuations - the old "Would-you-buy-a-used-car-from-this-guy?" style of argument.

According to this camp, anything that can be traced back to the September 19 coup-plotters is illegitimate and therefore rotten, no matter who has been involved since and how the pieces have actually been put together.

There is of course some hidden masochistic appeal to that approach because, just around the corner, a rejected charter draft would be replaced by any of the previous constitutions arbitrarily picked by the coup-leaders with the Cabinet they appointed.

(If you have any doubt about this conclusion, check out Article 32 of the current Provisional Constitution imposed on the day the coup was staged. My version of this provision specifies that if the simple majority of the voters in the referendum disapproves of the constitution draft, the Council of National Security, in joint meetings with Cabinet, "will consider amending one of the country's previous constitutions to be submitted for Royal proclamation within 30 days from the day the charter draft is rejected in the referendum".)

It is, therefore, my conviction that if we vote "No" on August 19, we could have the satisfaction, however short-lived, of slapping the faces of the coup leaders who would then be allowed to pick and choose any charter draft they like - plus amend it any way they wish too! If they want to play that sadistic game, they could just decide to reproduce the 1997 draft (which they tore up) and declare it "re-cycled" and reused.

Irony would then come full circle. The 1997 constitution, originally praised as "the people's charter" when it was first drawn up, was seen as a tool employed by Thaksin to make himself a "strong prime minister". Thaksin was then subsequently ousted when his government became too authoritarian because the checks and balances of the constitution couldn't be put into practice.

The situation could get even more interesting.

If the dissident movement succeeds in shooting down the 2007 draft, what would they do about the 1997 constitution that would be repackaged by the coup-leaders? Of course, if they consider any legal document touched by the junta to be politically contaminated, they would have to reject it too. Where, then, do we go from there? How do we get back to the main road from this political cul-de-sac?

It would be tempting to bring this absurd make-believe game to its logical end and suggest that the only option left for the anti-2007 draft movement would be to demand that Thaksin be allowed to return to power to draw up a new "more democratic" constitution. That's a non-starter in itself. None of the well-known scholars and "genuine activists" in this exercise, I presume, would want to be seen as being exploited by the highly questionable pro-Thaksin elements. I simply can't see how some clear-headed intellectuals would get mixed up with the pro-Thaksin group's slapstick routine, even if they were to perform on the same stage.

The position of genuine protesters is clear: they will oppose the new charter draft as a matter of principle. We aren't responsible for the consequences, they would say, we are voting with our consciences. Winning isn't the ultimate objective. And we have nothing to do with Thaksin or his circle of supporters. Any similarities in public utterances in this regard are purely coincidental.

And the position of those who intend to vote in favour of the 2007 draft is equally clear: the new draft won't be flawless. There is no such thing as a perfect constitution. We need to move on. The 1997 constitution was a great legal document exploited by money politics. We need to experiment with a new set of rules that, hopefully, will prevent the return of both a corrupt civilian regime and undue military influence. In a democracy, we only get to choose the least evil solution among all of the flawed ones. The most important thing is to know what the flaws are and how to prevent them from ruining the whole system.

My conclusion is, therefore, no matter which side you are on, don't feel guilty about it. Approach the referendum on August 19 with your conscience and your head clear. No calamity is awaiting us either way.

Check out my blog at www.blog.nationmultimedia.com/ThaiTalk for the latest views on current affairs offered in a multimedia (text, voice and video-clip) format... and tell me what you think.

Suthichai Yoon