Love, fashion and the Constitution

“I’ve produced four reference books explaining the Constitution to the public, and every time I’ve finished, something has happened to make the book obsolete”, Kanin, who helped draft the 1997 Constitution, said in an interview yesterday. “Now I fear something will happen to this Constitution”.

Like love and fashion, Thai constitution have resounded for years, and now opposition parties wary of being beaten at the polls have placed constitutional change at the forefront of their agenda. But, like those who want Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to resign, those calling for constitutional reform appear to agree only that change is necessary; what those changes will be another story.

Not surprisingly, most of those who want the Constitution changed also want Thaksin to leave the political scene. The prime minister, they say, has bought off independent bodies and millions of poor uneducated North-easterners, rendering the Constitution useless and the prospect of a change of government after the next election unlikely. Hence, the election boycott called yesterday by the three main opposition parties. They have determined that the rules based on the 1997 Constitution are not being followed, and they no longer want to play the game with a man they consider a cheat.

But this Constitution was supposed to have eradicated the possibility of fraud. With its roots in the 1992 bloody ‘Black may’ uprising, the 1997 Constitution aimed to eliminate vote-buying and corruption by empowering independent watchdogs to ensure a fair playing field.

“I never imagined this would happen when we finished the Constitution in 1997,” Kanin said. “But now I see the loopholes.”

Everything appeared to be running smoothly until 2001, when the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) charged Thaksin with deliberately submitting a false assets declaration in 1997, when he was deputy prime minister. The Constitutional Court was entrusted with judging the merits of the case.

Until then, the Constitutional Court had upheld every one of the NCCC’s findings. In Thaksin’s case this would have seen him banned from politics for five years. But in one of history’s twists of fate, the public – tired of a corrupt Democrat government – took to the streets to ensure that the newly – elected Thaksin had the chance to govern.

On August 3, 2001, the court finally delivered a verdict that has had enormous ramifications in terms of today’s events. By an eight-to-seven vote, the court defied the NCCC and cleared Thaksin of wrongdoing.

“The people who had to decide Thaksin’s fate weighed up two issued: the popular mood of the country and the letter of the law,” Giles Ungpakorn, a olitical science professor at Chulalongkorn University, was quoted as saying at the time.

“And they decided by eight-to-seven that the popular mood was more important.”

A cursory look at the state of the independent bodies today reveals the verdict’s impact. The NCCC is not functioning, the State Audit Commission went 18 months without a leader and the Constitutional Court, the Senate and the Election Commission are all widely perceived as being pro-Thai Rak Thai.

It is understandable that those who want constitutional change also want Thaksin gone. Critics belive that the 2001 Constitutional Court verdict represented a watershed for Thailand’s young democracy, and the only way to right the ship is to toss the hijacker overboard and batten down the hatches.

“The Constitution is not the problem and neither is another election,” said Senator Thongbai Thongpao, who also helped write the 1997 Constitution.

“The center of the problem is the prime minister. He crated all these problems in the first place, so how can he solve them? Thongbai asked.

With an intimidating 336 articles, the Constitution certainly has no shortage of material that can be changed. Even though 100 people will undoubtedly come up with 100 different ways to mend the abused Constitution, several broad themes have emerged.

Under Article 313, only Cabin members, senators and lawmakers can propose constitutional amendments. Though reformers are wary of making too easy to change the constitution, they also want to allow eligible voters to be able to propose amendments by collecting anywhere between 100,000 and 500,000 signatures.

Article 291 only requires a minister to report assets held by him or her, his or her spouse and children under the age of 20.

With Ample Rich and Shin Corp sale at the center of the current crisis, critics want this article to be amended to require ministers to report their entire family’s holdings, regardless of their children’s age.

Similarly, Article 110, paragraph 2, says a lawmaker should not receive a state concession. Critics want this chanced to restrict anyone whose company has ever received a state concession to be banned from politics - a clause that would have prevented Thaksin from running for office.

And finally, much talk surrounds the 90-days rule which effectively prevents MPs from changing parties if the prime minister decides to dissolve the House. This rule was initially put into the Constitution to promote political stability, but the current crisis has made many think that the country is no more stable than it was before.

“Even though we have the 90-day rule in the Constitution now, it doesn’t mean our political system is stable,” said Colonel Vinae Sompong, the first Thai Rak Thai lawmaker to resign from the party and call on Thaksin to resign. “In our history, stability has been threatened by one of three things: violence in the South and a corrupt government.”

Though many critics want the 90-day rule scrapped, they are not clear what should replace it. Some people like the big parties that exist today, others want smaller parties to rise again, and still others want the party system consigned to the history books.

Thaksin’s reluctance to embrace constitutional change is understandable, given how the current one has treated him so far. As one Thai Rak Thai member lamented this week: “The protestors want to amend the Constitution so that anybody but Thaksin can run the country.”

Reformers probably would not disagree. But while they blame the prime minister for training the Constitution, they also realize that even if they redraft the charter 100 times over, it will only be as strong as the leaders who enforce it and the citizens that hold those leaders accountable.

“The Constitution is only a packet of papers,” Kanin said. “It doesn’t mean anything without good people to implement it.”

Source: http://www.manager.co.th/IHT/