• 
• 

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. Yes, the country is in a major crisis, and of course big change is needed before we hit rock bottom, but while soul-searching is required, the most crucial question we have to tackle is whether we are in this predicament because our nation has bad rules or because we have no ability to play by good ones.

Talk about a "CDA [Constitution Drafting Assembly] III" is gaining momentum. Predictably, in the middle of every political crisis, the word "reform" becomes the catchiest, and it is almost automatic that we need a new charter every time we are caught in a political deadlock. Strangely, though, we are blaming the deep national divide, failure to combat corruption, military interference in politics and chronic street protests on words written on a piece of paper.

No, we don't need a new Constitution. We came up with one of the best charters in 1997, one that was strong in substance and very detailed in how to use good rules and foster noble values. For a while it seemed to be working really well. Sanan Kachornprasart, one of the most influential political figures back then, was banned for five years from politics for simply reporting a false Bt10-million debt. Big-name election candidates started dropping like flies as the Election Commission wielded its power against vote-buying.

Yes, there was a time when a false figure in an account, as minuscule as Bt10 million, and relatively minor cases of suspicious election activities could ruin your political career no matter how big you were. How did we do that? It was easy: We had good rules, and we simply followed and implemented them without caring whether those at the receiving end would decry the action as a conspiracy.

Then came Thaksin Shinawatra, armed with a landslide victory and an unprecedented budget-spending programme earmarked for the poor. The marvellous political landscape immediately went into its selective legal-enforcement mode. When the checks and balances prescribed by the 1997 Constitution relaxed their grip, he exerted his on the system, and the rest is history.

Now we are so eagerly poised to go back to square one. Yesterday's "summit" between prime minister, opposition leader, House speaker and Senate resident warmly welcomed the "CDA III" idea. The big four tentatively agreed that an article in the 2007 Constitution could be changed to allow an independent but exclusively selected assembly to draft a new charter that would hopefully drag Thailand out of this crisis.

What would that bring us? A great Constitution and a honeymoon period of three months maybe? After that the new rules will be evaded or selectively applied all over again. There will be resentment, manoeuvring and manipulation that could take us to a new crisis, and possibly after a couple of years certain sectors of the population would start thinking that maybe another coup would not be such a bad idea after all.

We are capable of writing good rules. There is no question about that. Our real problem is learning how to take them to heart. We always end up looking back and seeing how great the rules were after ignorance of them leads us to a dead end. In other words, we don't really mean it when we write down the rules.

One may ask what the solution should be then. Apparently "CDA III" is the only way to make People's Alliance for Democracy supporters leave Government House.

Also, it is apparently the only way to make the pro-Thaksin camp accept tough constitutional conditions and not perceive them as a conspiracy of the highest order. With the 2007 charter considered by half of Thailand as a military legacy, what could be the answer other than CDA III? The answer is, there is no clear-cut answer. We are just a confused lot who always pay attention to proclaimed values at the wrong time. We have never been there when our Constitutions needed protection, and we always discuss "reform" when it is either too late or when we become too divided to address principles with clear and neutral heads. What is most ironic, though, is that when our failings threaten to tear us apart, we always go back and blame what we wrote, which to be fair never got our due attention in the first place.