• 
• 

Published on July 23, 2007

The battle lines have been drawn between opposing political forces campaigning for and against the proposed new 309-article constitution in the run-up to the August 19 referendum. Whichever way the outcome goes - Yes or No - the people's decision on the new charter, drawn up by the military-appointed Constitution Drafting Panel and passed by the National Legislative Assembly, must be respected. As the referendum approaches, the Council for National Security, the NLA, the interim Surayud government it appointed, and most mainstream political parties are now campaigning for a Yes vote. They want to ensure a smooth transition that will culminate in a general election, a new democratically elected civilian government and restoration of full democracy in this country.

The CNS and military-appointed government and NLA have a clear incentive to get people to vote Yes for the new constitution because they are the ones who have been actively involved in its creation. If the charter is accepted in the plebiscite, the junta can then justify the coup that ousted the elected but corruption-prone former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and claim credit for honouring its promise to implement political reform and restore democracy.

But the campaign for a No vote is led by groups ranging from people who call themselves pro-democracy activists to anti-military protesters, as well as members of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai Party of deposed PM Thaksin. Not all of these groups should be accused of doing the bidding of Thaksin, or of trying to stir up political disturbances, although it is true that some of the old Thaksin loyalists are among the most visible and vociferous No campaigners. They argue that the proposed constitution should be rejected in its entirety because it was drawn up by the Constitution Drafting Panel and approved by the NLA at the behest of the CNS, which seized power through illegitimate means. As a logical extension of this belief, members of this camp say that all subsequent action taken by the CNS, including the appointment of the Surayud government and the creation of the NLA, along with the constitution drafting process itself, was illegitimate. The No campaigners also express a strong suspicion that the proposed charter has been rigged in such a way that will allow the military to dominate national politics and undermine the future democratisation process.

Such weighty questions deserve serious consideration by anyone who cares about Thailand's destiny as a democracy. Despite differences in ideologies, worldviews and objectives, the rights of all groups to campaign for what they think is the best path for Thailand back to democracy should be respected. But such rights must come with responsibility for the two sides to engage in rational debate, not emotional verbal exchanges or name-calling. It must be said that there are people on both sides who sincerely believe in the importance of the rule of law and who profess a genuine love for democracy. In politics, it is normal for opposing political forces to disagree and still work in different ways for the best interests of the country.

Let's not forget that the proposed new constitution is a very complicated document that must be closely examined and thoroughly interpreted before one comes up with opinions and judgements. With less than one month to go, only a small minority of eligible voters who are expected to cast their votes have received and actually read the document. The proposed charter must be considered and weighed on its own merits - not on the advantages or disadvantages that it would give to opposing political forces struggling to gain power or harbouring vengeful thoughts.

The idea, broached by some prominent members of both the Yes and No camps, for representatives to participate in a series of public debates should be seriously considered by both sides. After all, there is no better way to persuade members of the public than through public discussion, which could be broadcast through the state-controlled media, which have the capability to reach out to great numbers of people in the urban centres as well as the countryside.

That would ensure fairness to the opposing political camps and it also has the potential of getting people interested in the issues being debated. It perhaps might even encourage many of them to actually read the proposed new constitution for themselves.