The two bodies responsible for writing the constitution are hoeing a hard row. It seems, however, that the National Reform Council (NRC) and the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) are making the task more difficult than necessary. A recommendation that the next prime minister be directly elected took a week of sometimes heated discussion before it was dumped. Up next was the equally unpopular and needless debate over whether the prime minister should even be elected at all. Both the NRC and the CDC appear to be seriously considering this ominous proposal.
And now the spotlight has fallen on what kind of Senate should be indentured after the military regime retreats. What seemed — momentarily — to be a light moment has turned into a solemn discussion about whether senators should be elected. The disasters and the pitfalls of even a partly-appointed upper house were apparent to most voters under the highly flawed 2007 constitution. Now, CDC chairman Borwornsak Uwanno says he is considering a plan under which citizens get no vote for any senators at all.
The idea of having an appointed prime minister and Senate is questionable. It raises a flag over whether the NRC and the CDC are truly intent on ending military coups and dedicating the country's governance to democratic principles and rule.
Although unsuitable for this country, it was still worth discussing whether voters should cast a ballot directly for the prime minister. But having no elections at all is not a worthy proposal. There are many ways to deal with the possibility of a dysfunctional upper house, but hand-picking senators is not one of them. And the proposal to slip in an unelected prime minister reduces the next constitution to little more than a law legalising coups without the necessity to put tanks on the streets.
The two bodies framing the constitution continuously raise the false alternatives of elections or stability. At this early — and hopefully forgettable — point, neither the NRC nor the CDC has presented the outline of a supreme law that adheres fully to democratic principles. We listen for sections and clauses in a charter that empower voters and make all bodies accountable to voters. But we hear instead a troubling and fearful surmise that citizens are incapable of voting in their own interest, or choosing their own representatives. Nor does it seem the constitution will provide the legal tools that can hold our leaders to account.
For example, amid all the talk there has not been one word on who would appoint the brilliant men and women to serve as prime minister and senators. To paraphrase the centuries-old conundrum: who appoints the appointees? It seems unreasonable that appointees — who must themselves be appointed — can choose the right people to serve in high positions any better than citizens in a simple one-man, one-vote system.
For constitution drafters to put the idea of appointments at the top of their agenda is disrespectful to voters nationwide. If anything, consideration of appointees to high political office needs to be bound by safety checks. Certainly this should not be the primary method of selecting a prime minister and an entire house of parliament.
Citizens can select their representatives at the polling booth quite properly.
The writers of the constitution should pursue several New Year's resolutions. First among them is to push aside any idea of appointed political bodies.