Challenging the powerful with a piece of paper

25 July 1997

Over the past year, the reform of the constitution has become steadily more controversial, more divisive, more emotional. This is not a surprise. This battle is not new. Several times over the past 65 years, reformers have tried to change the distribution of power by rewriting the rules of the political game. Every time, those in power have tried to stop them.

In this round, two different groups have shaped the reform attempt.

The first consists mainly of lawyers, academics, NGOs and human rights activists. They argue that although Thailand has some of the forms of a democracy, truly it is very undemocratic. The state is too strong. Individuals are treated very unequally. Big people can get away with almost anything ("Have we ever seen politicians punished under the current system?"). Little people have little voice, little defence. This is the legacy of a long history of absolute monarchy and military dictatorship. Autocratic habits are built into the mind-sets of the bureaucrats and politicians, and into the working systems of major institutions.

The current constitution sets out a list of human and civic rights. But then it qualifies them as "subject to existing laws". Many of these laws, created under dictatorship, contravene human rights. This group wants a charter which defines human rights and democratic principles; and which creates new judicial institutions to uphold them. Such a charter can act as a base for defending the individual, overhauling outdated institutions, and challenging the power structure. Bovornsak Uvanno summed up this group’s strategy: "that is what we call true justice and equality - the ability to punish powerful people". Imagine a Thailand where vote-buyers are prosecuted, corrupt policemen are sacked, hotel-owners cannot buy their way round planning rules, and "influence" can be challenged.

This group emerged in the 1980s, gelled during the 1991-2 crisis, and pushed for a major overhaul of the constitution under Chuan. The second group emerged against the background of the Banharn government.

This second group is interested less in rights and principles, and more in the structure of parliament. Since the 1973-6 period, Thailand has been stumbling towards democracy. Since 1988, the pace has quickened. The military influence has diminished. Parliament and cabinet have become more powerful. But something is going badly wrong. The system is dominated by the provincial bosses. They have turned the parliament into a patronage market. They use money to buy power, and then use power to make money. "The truth is," said ex-premier Anand Panyarachun, "the people are sick and tired after 65 years of the current parliamentary system. There is no faith."

This group believes Thailand needs to update its laws, institutions, infrastructure to match the extraordinary rate of economic and social change. Very little legislation gets passed at present because MPs are not interested. Too little infrastructure gets built because the patronage-brokers are squabbling over the spoils. The management of the economy has gone to hell because of vested interests.

This group wants to convert the parliament back from a patronage market to a legislature. Their key strategies are to reduce the financial incentives to becoming a MP or minister; and to adjust the power balance between capital and provinces. Imagine a cabinet free of gangsters and clowns, and a parliament which concentrates on legislation.

These two groups controlled the first stage of the drafting process. They put in a charter of rights, three powerful new courts, and a new blueprint for the parliamentary system. But then they got carried away, and threw in a wish-list of other changes. Some clauses tried to dictate the policy of future governments on decentralisation, public participation, planning and environmental management. Others tried to block Thailand’s history of coups. The draft was an odd mix of constitutional charter, political manifesto, and historical revisionism.

But stripped of this over-enthusiasm, the draft was still an extraordinary document. On both rights and structures, it threw down a challenge. A piece of paper against the powerful.

Not surprisingly, the document provoked almost everyone influential under the current system. MPs. Police. Military. Judges. Senators. Interior ministry. Village heads. Many of the objections lodged against the constitution were petty and niggling. But behind them was a broader opposition to this spirited challenge.

The debate over the draft has mobilized large numbers of people. From the start, the reformers knew they would need public support. They canvassed inputs and opinions through local meetings and surveys. After the first draft was ready, they held another round of review meetings. Especially in the provincial towns, these meetings were intense and lively. Thousands turned up to listen. Hundreds queued at the microphones to have their say. Participation went far beyond local politicians and activists. Businessmen, professionals, community leaders and ordinary people took part. In the reviews of the draft, the mood was generally supportive. The document might have some quirks and wrinkles. But overall it struck a positive chord among the participants in this new local civic consciousness.

On the other side, the opponents of the draft mobilized support through the structures of organized power. Pronouncements by top policemen and military officers. Resolutions passed at meetings of judges and village officials. Statements from the political parties. And a sudden resurgence of the village scout movement.

A few weeks ago, the two sides seemed to be moving towards confrontation. The battle of words had become more ideological, more emotional. On one side, Anand, a patrician figure who refused to meet workers during his premiership, was sounding like a revolutionary populist. The new draft, he claimed, would "return power to the people". On the other, people around the prime minister sneered at the CDA draft as the work of a gang of French-educated intellectuals who think they are re-enacting 1789. Politicians and other power-holders slated the draft with words like ugly, vicious, mad, absurd, dangerous, divisive, and sadistic. The violence of the vocabulary carried its own message.

The last two weeks have been fast and bewildering. First, the reformers backed down a bit. Articles which they had earlier declared "non-negotiable" were now open for discussion. Anand urged a final review of the draft to make it more acceptable to parliament.

Next, in the final debate, the provincial members of the CDA started to whittle back the draft. In skirmishes over some of the rights clauses, they established they had a majority. Then they used this majority to gut some of the key clauses, such as on the media.

All three of the past major "liberal" reforms of the constitution went through a similar watering down. Pridi’s ambitious statement of democratic principles in 1932 was diluted into a clumsy multi-stage plan which was never implemented. His second effort in 1946 lasted a year before being revised by coup. The draft by the 1973-4 constitutional assembly was toned down before implementation, and again revised after a coup.

But then on the parliamentary structure, the CDA passed the reform agenda - an elective senate, and separation of cabinet and legislature. Nobody is quite sure if this is a liberal triumph, or a delicate piece of conservative sabotage.

Now it seems rejection by parliament is inevitable. So the draft must go to a referendum. This will be a new experience in Thai politics. Nobody can be quite sure how it will turn out. The battle of words will heat up again. The conservatives will argue that the new draft is dangerous because it changes too much. The reformers will argue that we cannot afford to continue longer under the bad old system.

In the towns and cities, the new draft will gather support. In all the surveys and meetings on the reform, people have shown how much they have come to distrust current politicians. They want to promote the rule of law. They want to limit "influence". For all its faults, the new constitution moves in the right direction.

In the villages, the old guard will rely upon the old methods of patronage. These methods work superbly at parliamentary elections. But a referendum is not quite the same. Who will come up with the money?

Chavalit has recently hinted he is ready to intervene in the endgame. He espoused the principle of political reform, but has clearly been surprised by the CDA draft. His constitutional reform would undoubtedly be very different. He has always used the word "democracy" to mean a paternalist autocracy. He has openly talked about a constitutional reform which would make the premier more powerful, more capable of strong rule.

Whatever the outcome, the process of trying to reform the constitution has had a profound impact. Millions of people have been involved. The violent reactions of the powerful against this challenge have been very eloquent. This exercise in participatory education will not go to waste.