A fair referendum or bust

A fair referendum or bust

Tearing up a constitution is no laughing matter. Without a thorough consultative process, there is a huge risk the charter rewrite efforts will heighten colour-coded conflicts needlessly.

The referendum option was suggested by the Constitution Court several months ago but no politicians bothered to discuss any preparations for it. Back then, the talking heads of the ruling political camp were even resistant to the suggestion and were determined to push the charter amendment bill through its third and final reading in parliament.

No sooner did it occur to the government that defying the Constitution Court ruling could spell doom for the party than the politicians in power swung toward supporting the referendum.

It must have dawned on them that the door to charter amendment has a double lock with codes that need cracking.

But holding a referendum is a complex business and it cannot be carried out in a flash without careful preparations.

The first hurdle is legal. It is open to argument whether there is any law to accommodate holding a referendum that decides the fate of the charter. The Pheu Thai Party contends such a law exists but it must first be fine-tuned to ensure relevance to the charter rewrite referendum, the mother-of-all referendums.

The other potential headache pertains to the design of the question that will appear in the referendum ballot. Will a single question be a sufficient summary of the voters' mandate? Will a simple "yes" or "no" to the new charter reflect the majority of voters' true understanding of the meat of the new constitution?

The referendum law in the constitution has an in-built clause making the process disputable. If petitions can be filed to contest the referendum or its result, then it could add months to the charter amendment bid.

Also, what is far from clear is who between the Election Commission or the Supreme Court's Election Division reserves the final authority to rule on the petitions.

There is a whole load of murkiness that needs clarifying. Had our representatives been perceptive to our wishes to be consulted in the first place and not been so intent on rushing the amendment through, there would have been more time to study the shortcomings and more care would have been taken to place the legalities under the magnifying glass.

But time is not on the government's side and it has itself to blame for that. The government has spoken at length of its goal to call the charter amendment bill a wrap within the next legislative session of parliament, which commences later this month.

That was before the referendum issue emerged, and now the ball game has changed.

If the referendum is lengthening the charter change process, what will it do to the patience of the red shirts who have been told the present constitution is a sham which has to be overhauled or replaced, the sooner the better?

But this quagmire didn't emerge from thin air. The politicians we voted into office had no intention of discussing an issue of such significance as the charter rewrite with us. It was not until they were driven into the corner by the restrictions of the law that they agreed to seek out our input.

Politically calculated decisions often run counter to public interest. The referendum is a necessity on the pretext of the entire charter being redrafted. But if the charter is rectified section-by-section, we don't have to be consulted. Some things don't quite add up here.

Suppose any of the pillar sections of the constitution, which could alter the country's fundamental administrative structures, are slated for change, are we prepared to sit by voiceless while our representatives have a field day rewording what will shape the way we live?

Referendums can be educational as they can galvanise a lot of people into gathering facts and actually getting a grasp of the subject at stake so they make an informed choice at the ballot station and aren't fooled by any ulterior motive.

With so much riding on the result, the fear is that a half-hearted referendum could be another vote-buying splurge tilting favourably toward the welfare of a single individual desperate to come home.

Unless the referendum is free and fair, we might be better off not having it at all. We want to be asked, not bought.


Kamolwat Praprutitum is Assistant News Editor, Bangkok Post.

Kamolwat Praprutitum

Bangkok Post assistant news editor

Kamolwat Praprutitum is an assistant news editor, Bangkok Post.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (15)