SETTING THE RIGHT PRIORITIES FOR THAI DEMOCRACY

For many, the coup on the night of September 19, 2006 has completed yet another cycle of Thai politics. Many will be tempted to see this as just a rerun of the longstanding conflict between democratically elected politicians and autocrats represented by the military. Like so many “emerging” democracies, there is a sense that the country could still not get to grips with the challenges of democratization. What will it take for Thailand to avoid future extra-Constitutional changes?

Yet despite the similarities between the numerous coups in Thailand’s political history, one can see that democracy progresses, albeit not in a smooth fashion. Elected governments are now the norm, and those appointed by the coup leaders the exception – the reverse of the situation four or five decades ago.

While every coup is inevitably followed by attempts to roll back some of the democratic progress, it has become harder for coup leaders to do so. Constitutionalism, elections and political parties are expected to be restored. Over the years, the democratic political process has become part of people’s lives at all levels. With more stable governments, party policies have become more tangible. The problem is that such progress is no guarantee against coups. If the democratic process is expected to produce governments, it is still not able to remove them when certain conflicts arise. It should be noted that few coups are aimed at abrogating the Constitution. The latest coup is no exception. Indeed, it is ironic that to oust Thaksin from power, the coup leaders had to tear up the Constitution that Thaksin’s opponents wanted to protect from his abuse.

Now the country needs not only to return power to the people quickly, but also to draft a Constitution that would lay the foundations for a better democracy. She can only do so by reviewing the past and identifying both the strengths and weaknesses of previous Constitutions. She must also recognize present economic and social circumstances- global and local- and anticipate future trends.

The 1997 Constitution provides an important benchmark. It was a product of a drafting process that was uniquely democratic and participatory. It was also very progressive in substance, incorporating such concepts as direct democracy, decentralization, and extra- Parliamentary mechanisms to enhance accountability. It was highly unfortunate that a set of unique circumstances led to widespread abuse of the document so that by the time of the coup, its spirit had been almost totally violated. While containing some flaws, one should recognize that its spirit and objectives are still what the country needs today. Hence the drafting of the new Constitution should build upon the 1997 Constitution by using the following principles.

First, the new Constitution should further strengthen the provisions on people’s rights and participation as well as create the necessary mechanisms for their protection. Anything short of doing so will put the country out of step with the reality of the changing world. The key is to ensure that we have a limited government. Hence there must be provisions to protect the media, honest civil servants, activists, and ordinary people from interference and violations of rights by the State. These are the basic foundations of a democratic society. The last five years had seen a steady erosion of these because an elected leader thought the people had given him unlimited power. A partisan media, a politicized civil service and general intimidation of political opponents, not to mention severe violation of rights in the form of extra-judicial killings, meant there could never be meaningful participation or political competition.

Second, impartial and strict enforcement of the law is vital. If those in power feel they can stay above the law, it is impossible to deal with the issues above as well as the issue of corruption. Two important lessons should be learnt from the malfunctioning of various independent organizations designed to provide checks and balances in the 1997 Constitution. The first is that no entity should be granted absolute power. The Constitutional Court, the National Counter-Corruption Commission and the Electoral Commission became corrupt because of this. They too need to be checked and it may make sense to use more ad-hoc tribunals for specific cases to prevent power being entrenched in a few individuals. The other lesson is that it is simply unrealistic to expect any elected body to be nonpartisan. The Senate, which was supposed to oversee these bodies, became the system’s weakest link once it could be manipulated by the government.

Third, whatever the failings of the previous regime, a strong Parliamentary government is a step forward for democracy. Strong political parties continue to be the most effective mechanism in presenting the people with clear choices, making democracy both tangible and meaningful to people’s lives. A return to weak coalition politics with endless negotiations would take power from the people to a few power brokers. Hence the new Constitution should not try to weaken parties. Rather, it should try to make parties truly belong to the people. In particular, there is need to free parties from money-politics as much as possible. If parties belong to individuals who are big financiers, they will not put the people’s interests first. If politicians have expenses which far exceed their salaries, corruption is inevitable. Thus there is a need to establish rules concerning financial contributions and party spending. For too long the vicious cycle of vote buying and corruption has stifled the maturing of Thai democracy.

No one can guarantee that there will be no more coups in the future. What we can be sure of is that democratic pressure will grow with time and that coups will become more and more costly for the country. The challenge for the current regime is to provide the strongest possible foundations for democracy. Using the principles spelled out above will go some way to achieving this. It will then be for politicians and the Thai people to prove that our democracy has matured to the point where it can finally take care of itself. •

CONSTITUTION ISSUE 1 JUN-SEP 2007 Abhisit Vejjajiva Democrat Party Leader, Former Lecturer at Thammasat University Faculty of Law
		GUEST WRITERS: SETTING THE RIGHT PRIORITIES FOR THAI DEMOCRACY by Abhisit Vejjajiva

		For many, the coup on the night of September 19, 2006 has completed yet another cycle of Thai politics. Many will be tempted to see this as just a rerun of the longstanding conflict between democratically elected politicians and autocrats represented by the military. Like so many “emerging” democracies, there is a sense that the country could still not get to grips with the challenges of democratization. What will it take for Thailand to avoid future extra-Constitutional changes? Yet despite the similarities between the numerous coups in Thailand’s political history, one can see that democracy progresses, albeit not in a smooth fashion. Elected governments are now the norm, and those appointed by the coup leaders the exception – the reverse of the situation four or five decades ago. While every coup is inevitably followed by attempts to roll back some of the democratic progress, it has become harder for coup leaders to do so. Constitutionalism, elections and political parties are expected to be restored. Over the years, the democratic political process has become part of people’s lives at all levels. With more stable governments, party policies have become more tangible. The problem is that such progress is no guarantee against coups. If the democratic process is expected to produce governments, it is still not able to remove them when certain conflicts arise. It should be noted that few coups are aimed at abrogating the Constitution. The latest coup is no exception. Indeed, it is ironic that to oust Thaksin from power, the coup leaders had to tear up the Constitution that Thaksin’s opponents wanted to protect from his abuse. Now the country needs not only to return power to the people quickly, but also to draft a Constitution that would lay the foundations for a better democracy. She can only do so by reviewing the past and identifying both the strengths and weaknesses of previous Constitutions. She must also recognize present economic and social circumstances- global and local- and anticipate future trends. The 1997 Constitution provides an important benchmark. It was a product of a drafting process that was uniquely democratic and participatory. It was also very progressive in substance, incorporating such concepts as direct democracy, decentralization, and extra- Parliamentary mechanisms to enhance accountability. It was highly unfortunate that a set of unique circumstances led to widespread abuse of the document so that by the time of the coup, its spirit had been almost totally violated. While containing some flaws, one should recognize that its spirit and objectives are still what the country needs today. Hence the drafting of the new Constitution should build upon the 1997 Constitution by using the following principles. First, the new Constitution should further strengthen the provisions on people’s rights and participation as well as create the necessary mechanisms for their protection. Anything short of doing so will put the country out of step with the reality of the changing world. The key is to ensure that we have a limited government. Hence there must be provisions to protect the media, honest civil servants, activists, and ordinary people from interference and violations of rights by the State. These are the basic foundations of a democratic society. The last five years had seen a steady erosion of these because an elected leader thought the people had given him unlimited power. A partisan media, a politicized civil service and general intimidation of political opponents, not to mention severe violation of rights in the form of extra-judicial killings, meant there could never be meaningful participation or political competition. Second, impartial and strict enforcement of the law is vital. If those in power feel they can stay above the law, it is impossible to deal with the issues above as well as the issue of corruption. Two important lessons should be learnt from the malfunctioning of various independent organizations designed to provide checks and balances in the 1997 Constitution. The first is that no entity should be granted absolute power. The Constitutional Court, the National Counter-Corruption Commission and the Electoral Commission became corrupt because of this. They too need to be checked and it may make sense to use more ad-hoc tribunals for specific cases to prevent power being entrenched in a few individuals. The other lesson is that it is simply unrealistic to expect any elected body to be nonpartisan. The Senate, which was supposed to oversee these bodies, became the system’s weakest link once it could be manipulated by the government. Third, whatever the failings of the previous regime, a strong Parliamentary government is a step forward for democracy. Strong political parties continue to be the most effective mechanism in presenting the people with clear choices, making democracy both tangible and meaningful to people’s lives. A return to weak coalition politics with endless negotiations would take power from the people to a few power brokers. Hence the new Constitution should not try to weaken parties. Rather, it should try to make parties truly belong to the people. In particular, there is need to free parties from money-politics as much as possible. If parties belong to individuals who are big financiers, they will not put the people’s interests first. If politicians have expenses which far exceed their salaries, corruption is inevitable. Thus there is a need to establish rules concerning financial contributions and party spending. For too long the vicious cycle of vote buying and corruption has stifled the maturing of Thai democracy. No one can guarantee that there will be no more coups in the future. What we can be sure of is that democratic pressure will grow with time and that coups will become more and more costly for the country. The challenge for the current regime is to provide the strongest possible foundations for democracy. Using the principles spelled out above will go some way to achieving this. It will then be for politicians and the Thai people to prove that our democracy has matured to the point where it can finally take care of itself. •



English \| Thai


	HONGSAKUL.COM \| ABOUT US \| CONTACT US \| SITE MAP