The search begins today for three dozen good people believed capable of creating a constitution that can last longer than the paper it is written on. Scholars actually argue over just how many charters and formal constitutions the nation has had in the past 82 years. The current constitution, which is fungible by design, is generally considered to be the 19th. All indications point to the creation of a new supreme law that is a lot like the last one.
There are obvious problems with producing a respected constitution that has respect and lasting power. The most apparent is the military, which always abrogates the charter of the day when it seizes power.
But this raises a more basic question. If the charters keep producing regimes that are overthrown, would it be worth considering a new style of constitution?
Of course that question was asked two decades ago. The answer was "yes", and the result was the "people's constitution'' of 1997. It was produced after the most extensive surveys of citizens in history. No voice was silenced, no opinion was laughed off. Anand Panyarachun, already a popular figure for how he tempered the equally unpopular military regime of 1991, led the actual writing of the charter by an elected constitutional assembly.
Within a few years, the first Thaksin Shinawatra administration was plotting ways to get around the checks and balances and, more important, the first independent bodies set up under the 1996 constitution. Mostly, Thaksin and cronies tried to ignore the supreme law, and many of the independent groups were not even set up. Five years of that and the military again took matters into its own hands, overthrowing the regime and tossing the constitutional baby out with the dirty government bathwater. This was not a good idea.
The 2007 constitution, once again produced by appointed pro-coup men, kept some of the form of the people's charter, losing much of the important content. The 1997 constitution had a carefully constructed system of checks, balances, laws and oversight. The new, independent bodies which emerged post-2007 have mostly taken very seriously their right to independence, while ignoring their equal responsibility to be accountable.
Last week, Election Commissioner Somchai Srisuthiyakorn warned the new charter must be careful to keep independent bodies independent. But he said nothing about who would — or could — watch these watchdogs. It should be remembered that just this year, Mr Somchai's EC became the first known election commission in the world to work to prevent an election.
A successful constitution, apart from merely avoiding another military coup in a few years, must have public respect, and must actually function as what it is — the country's supreme law.
Like many, Mr Somchai implies that the "independent" in "independent body" means above the law. It does not. It means only that the body or committee or group does not answer to the government, but elsewhere.
Democracy requires accountability. With it, a country and regime are probably democratic. Accountability is found through laws, first and primarily in the constitution. The form of the charter is unimportant. Prior to 1932, Thailand had no written constitution, like Britain. Neither do charters gain respect for their heft, as the pocket-sized US constitution proves.
The new constitution need not define every detail of political and legal life. That's what laws, courts, parliaments and public opinion will do. The 36 writers of the 20th Thai constitution must create realistic checks and balances, justice and accountability in the new charter. Otherwise, there will be a 21st charter down the road.