Ah, the delicate art of rewriting a constitution! It might sound like a breeze, especially with overwhelming support from the House of Representatives, but let me tell you, it’s anything but easy. The formidable hurdle standing in the way of success? The dreaded referendum. Yes, to authorize a wholesale change to the charter, the people must have their say. And if history has taught us anything, it’s that referendums are as unpredictable as they come.
This year, we’ve witnessed some dramatic pushes, primarily by the feisty opposition People’s Party and the ruling Pheu Thai Party, eager to clear the referendum hurdle and dive headfirst into a constitutional redraft. Their rallying cry? The 20th constitution, promulgated back in 2017, is seen as a remnant of dictatorship, conceived and passed under the watchful eye of the National Council for Peace and Order, which swept the Prayut Chan-o-cha administrations into power like a political storm.
Critics have zeroed in on a controversial clause in the charter requiring the Senate, handpicked by the NCPO, to join forces with the MPs in co-electing a prime minister. This very clause is blamed for former PP leader Pita Limjaroenrat missing out on the prime minister’s chair, with senators voting down his nomination after last year’s general election. Instead, the Senate threw its weight behind Pheu Thai’s candidate, Srettha Thavisin.
The prime minister co-election clause, mercifully, expired in May this year as NCPO-chosen senators made way for cross-professionally elected replacements. However, the so-called “cheat-buster” constitution has been under attack for strengthening the power of independent agencies, notably the Constitutional Court, whose rulings can topple political postholders like a house of cards.
Adding to the constitutional conundrum, the charter lacks a mechanism for the public to petition the impeachment of public office-holders—contrary to previous charters. Remember the good old 1997 constitution, which allowed at least 50,000 voters to lodge a petition with parliament? Or the 2007 version, which lowered the bar to a mere 20,000? Ah, those were the days!
The opposition People’s Party and Pheu Thai have been at the forefront of a campaign to simplify and expedite the referendum process by throwing out the so-called “double-majority” rule. This rule requires more than 50% of eligible voters to participate and, among them, a majority to approve the new charter—a thornier issue than anticipated, generating discord within the House.
In January, Pheu Thai sought the Constitutional Court’s wisdom on the number of referendums required to amend the charter. Enter the government-appointed committee, led by Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Phumtham Wechayachai, busy drafting new guidelines for holding a referendum. This endeavor, if rumors are true, could cost a whopping 10.5 billion baht.
The Phumtham panel endorsed a proposal for three charter amendment referendums, with the first asking voters if they fancy a rewrite, the second pondering amendments to Section 256 of the constitution, thus paving the way for a Charter Drafting Assembly (CDA), and the third seeking support for adopting a new charter.
Yet, Pheu Thai’s internal team recommended just two referendums—a stance shared by the now-defunct Move Forward Party (MFP), which was the PP’s predecessor. April saw the cabinet amend the Referendum Act 2021, doing away with the notorious double-majority rule. The rule was criticized for making referendums tougher to pass than a camel through a needle’s eye. A special parliamentary committee was formed to dissect and alter the referendum law.
By mid-June, the House considered four bills to rectify the Referendum Act, each demanding the elimination of the double-majority requirement and championing the simpler single majority rule. Ah, democracy at its finest!
The summer was heating up as July brought the House and Senate into a clash over the referendum bill. A majority of senators opposed the removal of the double-majority requirement, insisting that referendums deciding substantial national matters deserved rigorous approval processes. PP’s Parit Wacharasindhu voiced fears that the double-majority rule might encourage deceptive abstentions.
October rolled in, and the House decisively rejected the Senate’s bid to bring back the double-majority rule, leading to the establishment of a joint committee to resolve differences. Suggestions of innovative rules like the “one and a half” majority were floated but ultimately floundered.
Fast forward to chilly December days, with the joint committee announcing a mandatory 180-day “cooling-off” period before any moves to amend the referendum bill resume. The clock is ticking, and whispers around town suggest the charter rewrite might not conclude before the next election cycle in 2027.
Former Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam noted the legal and technical hurdles hindering wholesale constitutional amendments. He opined that a “limited charter amendment” could be a more sensible path forward, bypassing the cumbersome referendum route altogether.
Meanwhile, Mr. Parit and PP continue pushing for an efficient two-referendum approach. Bone-chilling winds or not, the House remains steadfast on observing that 180-day suspension, with the opposition party maintaining its two-referendum proposition, vowing constitution changes before the next election. It’s a complex dance of propositions and counterproposals, with analysts remaining skeptical amid the House-Senate discord—a referendum riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
Why do we need so many referendums to just rewrite a constitution? Seems like overkill to me.
I disagree. Multiple referendums ensure that the public truly supports each step of the process. It’s about democracy in action.
But aren’t these referendums costly and time-consuming? Wouldn’t a streamlined process be better?
True, they are costly, but if we rush the process, we risk another flawed constitution. It’s a necessary investment.
I think the problem lies with the senators opposing reforms that would make the process easier. They’re holding us back!
People seem to forget how the 2017 constitution was forced through under military oversight. Aren’t we overdue for a change?
Exactly! Any constitution created under such circumstances lacks legitimacy and doesn’t reflect people’s will.
But isn’t it also important to maintain some continuity in governance? Changes should be cautious and well considered.
Sure, but that doesn’t justify ignoring the obvious flaws in the current system. It needs fixing, sooner than later.
I actually like the idea of a ‘cooling-off’ period. Emotions run high in politics, and time to reflect is important.
The cost of these referendums is ridiculous. Couldn’t that funding be better used elsewhere?
Democracy isn’t cheap, unfortunately. But a well-funded referendum ensures an informed and fair process.
But there must be a way to cut costs without sacrificing the integrity of the process, right?
I’m worried that no matter what constitution is drafted, it’ll just end up being manipulated by those in power.
That’s why we need strong independent agencies to uphold it. But they also shouldn’t have too much power to topple governments.
Good point! Balance is key. Otherwise, we’ll end up in the same spot a few years down the line.
Why is everyone so afraid of the double-majority rule? Shouldn’t we aim for more consensus in critical decisions?
It makes the process overly complex. Many people abstain, and it skews the results unfairly.
But doesn’t this force us to really engage with the issues at hand and not just take a simplistic yes/no approach?
In theory, yes, but in practice, it’s cumbersome and can be manipulated.
Can’t Thailand just look at other successful democracies and replicate their constitutions? Why reinvent the wheel?
There’s an argument to be made that each country needs a unique constitution that reflects its own history, culture, and political context.
It’s frustrating watching politicians squabble over details while people in Thailand face real issues like poverty.
Agreed. Sometimes these political debates feel detached from everyday realities. What’s the priority here?
Exactly. Focus should be on immediate issues rather than endless debates on constitutional theory.
A constitution is not just a document. It’s the foundation for all laws and rights. So shouldn’t it be perfect?
Perfection is a lofty goal. What’s more important is that the constitution is fair and changeable as society evolves.
In an ideal world, yes. But let’s face it, politics is about power, not perfection. The rich and powerful will always influence outcomes.
Why not return to the 1997 model? It seemed to uphold democracy better than the current one.
That’s a nostalgic notion, but we need something that works for today’s challenges.
Are people seriously suggesting we rewrite the constitution without the public’s voice being heard? That’s a dangerous path.
But sometimes experts need to take charge. Not everything should be decided by popular vote, especially with complex issues.
That’s authoritarian thinking! The public must always have a say in how they’re governed.
Absolutely! Without public involvement, you risk disenfranchising people even further.