The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) seized power with several promises. One, often tested and sometimes found wanting, was the pledge to abandon populist policies. In truth, no modern nation, including Thailand, exists without such programmes. The vital question is not whether to wipe out everything populist, but just how to moderate populism in a way that benefits all, especially the nation itself.
This is the issue on which ex-premier Yingluck Shinawatra faces impeachment. While the charges against her are stated in legalese, they amount to this: the former prime minister and her government ran a populist programme that was wildly out of control. It appeared to benefit a minority of citizens, specifically rice farmers. It also gave still uncounted gains to a far tinier minority — namely Mr Yingluck, some government ministers and a few loyal minions.
These charges are debatable, unproved and subject to future legal action. As framed, however, they describe the effects of populism gone mad. The National Legislative Assembly will vote in a couple of weeks on whether to push the case through to the courts. If so, the ex-premier will likely face five years in the political wilderness, unable to run for office.
Meanwhile, however, the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) is unhappy with this process. If CDC chairman Borwornsak Uwanno gets his way, future impeachments may go to the electorate. Mr Borwornsak has proposed putting the possibility of a referendum on each future impeachment charge. That is, a minister, member of parliament or public servant will be given the thumbs-up or down in one, climactic vote.
Putting populism into any national policy is a controversial step. But putting such legal decisions as impeachment into the hands of voters is far more risky than most. Using the current Yingluck case as an example — everyone is — the CDC chairman would ask the people who voted for or against a Yingluck government to vote again on whether she should be punished. How such a vote could avoid politics is the first question Mr Borwornsak addresses when he starts to explain this extraordinary recommendation.
The idea of the political referendum has taken generally unenthusiastic hold in Thailand. The first — and so far the last — referendum was conducted in 2007. The previous military regime asked the country to accept or reject its new constitution. It was essentially a Hobson's choice. A vote for the charter would bring fresh elections under a flawed constitution. A negative opinion would mean more months of military rule to draft a new charter.
Calls for specific referendums have come and gone, lackadaisically. Britain's referendum last year on whether to grant independence to Scotland raised local interest. The head of the Election Commission spent substantial funds to research that vote, including on-the-scene observation. His post-Scotland remarks did not even foresee the possibility of putting individual politicians on such a ballot.
There has been weak support for another referendum, presumably next year, on the CDC's final constitution proposal. As in 2007, it is assumed the NCPO will impose conditions on the consequences of the vote.
Critics have noted that a referendum on such a complicated matter provides no voice for nuanced comment. Under the proposal, voters will approve or reject the entire constitution in one fell swoop. Mr Borwornsak's sudden passion for a referendum is worthy of a lot of study before it can be adopted.