• 
• 

Published on July 19, 2007

In fact, it would have been more exciting if things had gone the other way and the headline had read "NGOs reach consensus over charter draft!" That would have immediately been seen as a "conspiracy" on their part to cosy up to the coup-leaders. It would have pulled the rug out from the country's attempt to return to the path of democracy.

Nobody should be surprised, in fact, that thinking members of society are taking up opposing positions over the constitution. That's how it should be. That's how it's supposed to be.

It's apathy, not heated debate, over the upcoming political agenda that's undermining the country's prospects of returning to electoral democracy. To me, a frighteningly low turnout for the August 19 referendum would be much more detrimental to the country's future than an overwhelming vote against the constitution draft.

A voter turnout of 25 to 30 per cent for the referendum would, for example, be a major political disaster because it would subvert any legitimacy that the referendum was supposed to obtain by putting it through a public vote. Even if 70 per cent of ballot-casters were to vote in favour of the draft, its passage into law would be subject to a serious challenge by those opposed to the draft for one reason or another.

They could argue - not totally unconvincingly - that if only one-third of eligible citizens bothered to exercise their right to vote on the new charter, the logical conclusion would be that at least two-thirds of the people were either against it or didn't even bother to exercise their rights. That would plunge the country into another crisis of confidence. The debate over the legitimacy of the new constitution would split the nation into various factions once again. We would be in a perpetual state of political malaise.

The various NGOs, which were on the same side fighting against "Thaksinomics" and were caught in the horns of a dilemma when the September 19 coup was staged, have now decided to go their different ways over the vote on the new constitution - although they will have to tread very carefully on this new ground.

The fact that even faculty members of the same university have taken opposing positions on this issue should not have come as a surprise to anyone. Rather, it is the reasons they offer the public to justify their decisions that bears close scrutiny.

On one extreme is the group of scholars who have campaigned vigorously to "kill" the charter based on the very simple argument that because the constitution was drawn up by a committee named by the coup leaders, the draft is unacceptable in any shape or form. Since the source is illegitimate, they argue, anything that grows out of it must necessarily be despicable. Their theme was nothing short of total rejection: "Oppose the coup by killing the draft." To them, even discussing the provisions of the draft would be tantamount to being exploited by the coup-leaders.

On the other end are the political NGOs that constituted the main thrust of the anti-Thaksin alliance. They have, after a tremendous amount of soul-searching, come up with a "Yes" position, with the proviso that any undesirable provisions in the draft can and should be amended by the government put in place after the election. This camp's justification is also quite revealing. If the draft is voted down in the referendum, that move would automatically give the coup-leaders (top members of the Council for National Security) and the Cabinet the power to pick a new charter.

Yet another well-known and well-respected NGO voted to go against the draft for a different set of reasons. They aren't too concerned about the coup leaders' role in the process. What this group has found unacceptable in the draft is the clear lack of intent to genuinely undertake social and political reforms. They consider powers granted in the draft to bureaucrats, especially those in the judicial branch, excessive, and see it blatantly violating the people's legitimate political power.

Despite attempts in some circles to portray such diverse positions among the politically-active non-government groupings as "chaotic", the ongoing debate is in fact quite heartening and healthy.

The theme should, therefore, be: Let one hundred flowers bloom.

That, of course, is the absolute opposite of the situation depicted in a cartoon I saw the other day in which the leader of a crowd of wild buffaloes declared to its hundreds of followers: "After exhaustive research, innumerable high-level meetings, and a lot of hand-wringing and soul-searching, we've decided to stampede."

At times, our political landscape does seem to resemble that scene.Let's try to avoid that at all costs.

Suthichai yoon