As soon as the draft constitution endorsed by a majority of people in the Aug 7 referendum takes effect, which could be anytime in the near future, it should first and foremost serve as an agreement defining relations between the state and its people, not a bind confining one or the other.
The Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) and the military regime supervising it are obliged by the spirit of Constitution Day today to ensure that the new charter will fulfil its primary and honourable role.
Political conflicts during the past many years prompted the military leaders and charter drafters to try to use the highest law as the ultimate solution. The draft charter has been dubbed an anti-corruption document as the drafters put into it mechanisms they believe will help fight graft and conflicts of interest. It is also embedded with a complex electoral system designed to prevent a return of a strong executive arm that the powers-that-be believe was a root cause of the political rifts.
These marginal elements already make the new draft charter a hefty one, with numerous rules and mechanisms that could prove to be a challenge when implemented.
What is most worrying, however, is the new charter could possibly be tied to a 20-year national strategy to be drafted as a new law by the CDC as well. The committee chairman Meechai Ruchupan last week indicated that governments after the next election will have to follow the national strategy or risk being prosecuted for violating the charter.
Mr Meechai was not making an empty threat. The draft charter did specify in Section 162 that the cabinet must announce to parliament its policies which must conform to the state's duties and policy guidelines as specified in the draft charter as well as the national strategy.
The draft charter, however, falls short of identifying punishment for failure to comply with the requirement. In light of how bundling up the country's long-term development plan with the charter will likely produce a policy straitjacket that makes it almost impossible for future governments to function effectively, let alone innovatively as rapid changes around the world seem to require, this particular omission should be respected.
The attempt to extend the requirement and set in stone a demand that future government policies can never go further than the national strategy or risk becoming unconstitutional is likely to produce multi-fold problems.
First, such a demand is decidedly impractical. The long-term national development plan, which must be prepared by the government in one year after the charter takes effect, is supposed to be a flexible guideline to be easily adaptable to new changes and challenges that are arising every day in our ever-evolving world. The charter and its rules on the contrary are expected to be a cornerstone for stability. Tying the two laws together will render both as dysfunctional.
Politically, the requirement will only provide an almost unlimited chance for people to impeach the government, resulting in it being unstable.
Second, despite complaints about its flaws, the draft charter was approved by a majority of voters through a national referendum. The so-called 20-year development plan, however, will be drafted only by a handful of people from the government and the CDC. The strategy plotters may argue that they are preparing the development masterplan according to input they have received from the public through their many reform hearings, but the process can't really be described as an inclusive one.
It would not be fair to impose a national strategy on the government and public as if they were on par with the charter.