Constitutional change should avoid conflict

Rival political groups in Thailand are being unnecessarily confrontational over the constitutional amendments as they set ultimatums to each other that any move by their opponents - to rewrite or not rewrite the charter - would lead to retaliatory action against each other. This political atmosphere and possible confrontation could result in an unwelcome outcome, violence. The Constitution, whatever its source of origin - the peoples' representatives, military coup or even from the monarchy - is not sacred. It is far from perfect so it is right for it to be amended in line with the current situation and political circumstance.

Many countries have rewritten their constitutions a number of times. Our beloved Thailand is no exception. We have had 18 Constitutions, each of which has been changed many times. History gives a good lesson to learn from - that a change in a constitution sometimes ends in blood if people in the country fail to reach a compromise.

History might repeat itself if the government, which proposed the Constitution changes and the group of self-proclaimed constitutional defenders, fail to compromise. The current situation indicates that both sides are not willing to do this.

The ruling People Power Party showed its clear intention to rewrite some articles in the military-sponsored Constitution apparently to avoid party dissolution over electoral fraud. On the other side, the People's Alliance for Democracy who backed the 2006 coup and its Constitution threatened to call huge street protests if the government kept to its rewrite plan.

However, nobody in this country should allow either side to go down the road that leads to uncontrollable conflict as alternatives are available, such as a widely suggested establishment of Constitution drafting assembly. Similar to two previous drafters when Thailand wrote the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions, the assembly would include all concerned parties from all levels to participate in drafting the Constitution.

Technically, an amendment to the current Constitution could simply be proposed by the Cabinet, one-fifth of members of House of Representatives, one-fifth of the combined Lower and Upper Houses or 50,000 eligible voters. But, as long as certain groups in the country continue to distrust the government and politicians, a special drafting assembly is necessary.

This option obviously needs government support to firstly propose a minor adjustment to Article 291, enabling amendment of the 2007 constitution to be done by a special assembly, rather than through the parliamentarians as specified in the article.

The coalition government is in the position to do this since it has a controlling majority in the Lower House. Thailand has good experience in doing so since the then Prime Minister Banharn Silapa-Archa amended Article 211 of the also military-sponsored 1991 Constitution enabling an amendment of the whole Constitution, resulting in the 1997 Constitution. The 1997 Constitution might not be perfect but it is widely regarded as one of the most democratic charters Thailand has ever had due to its process of writing and many advanced elements in the text.

Unlike the current charter, the 1997 Constitution was written when the country was free from military intervention. This time again, the elected government has a chance to open the way for a charter amendment without military influence.

This way, constitutional change might take a bit longer than other ways but it could be a good option for all parties for a number of reasons.

First, it could end the political confrontation and tension as all parties would have the chance to put forward their views during the drafting process.

Second, the longer process would allow everyone time to think and re-think about what is best for the paramount law of the country.

Third, if a special assembly were appointed, the government and Parliament would have more time to focus on running the country and solving economic problems.

In choosing this option as the best alternative to another political crisis, all factions would be required to sacrifice their respective agendas. The government must be prepared to take the risk of the dissolution of major coalition parties and putting all its effort behind the change to Article 291 to pave the way for a special assembly.

Meanwhile the self-proclaimed defenders of the Constitution must make sacrifices too by allowing the amendment to make the Constitution more democratic and practical.