They scoffed when chief constitution writer Borwornsak Uwanno cited Thai exceptionalism as the simplest explanation for what he was doing to try to draft a supreme law that would last longer than the average 4.15 years of previous constitutions.
Yet, nothing else but “Thainess” easily explains the document that is going into the high councils of the high military command on Tuesday.
It is 131 pages — single spaced. It has 61,731 words. Diamonds Are Forever by Ian Fleming was 61,000 words of James Bond. Take it from someone who read the draft constitution so you don’t have to (yet), Bond is more interesting. (Figures from the fabulous English translation by Council of State staffers.)
By contrast, the undoubtedly massive constitution of 2007, also written to military specifications, had 50,807 words. It was one of the longest charters in the world.
By more contrast, the justly famous United States constitution runs 4,400 words with the bill of rights and 17 other amendments. It fits easily in a shirt pocket. The less well known British constitution is even smaller, and it is less well known and even less frequently cited because there isn’t one. British supreme law rests pretty much on tradition and case law.
This week’s typical secrecy around the proposed constitution is unique for another reason. While bootleg copies of the constitution are widely available (including on the Bangkok Post’s website), the public isn’t much interested in debating the actual document. The real issue at stake is whether the green shirts intend to let the public give it a thumbs up-or-down.
“Referendum” is the word of the week. When all this started last August, the men in charge of the country were mostly adamant they would foist a new constitution on the country. In a stunning reversal last week, the CDC and its nominal boss, the National Reform Council, both military approved, came out in strong favour of holding a referendum before adoption of the new charter.
Caution. We’ve been here before. In 2007, the then-military autocrat Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin reluctantly granted permission for the country’s first referendum ever on a clearly inferior charter. It was a hostage, Hobson’s Choice situation. Vote for a terrible constitution and see the backs of an incompetent military regime. Vote against and get another year of Gen Sonthi.
So all eyes will be on Gen Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha on Tuesday. He has last say on everything, including referenda. Last week, he turned so ambivalent he sounded like the politician he keeps promising he never will be. He said he wanted to hear the opinion of his fellow green shirts before he makes up his mind and, “no one in the cabinet will want to say what they think if I speak first”. Reporters trying to corner him on the cost of a referendum, now estimated at three billion baht, got a big “So what?” He refused to take that bait. Instead, “if we have to pay, so be it”.
This is the Thainess of the process. Take a country with so many similarities to Thailand, accidental and on purpose.
The debate on the US constitution lasted from Sept 17, 1787, to May 29, 1790, when it was finally shrunk enough to be ratified and signed into effect: 985 days. The process started with a rancorous and emotional two-day fight in the US Congress over whether the constitution draft committee had exceeded their authority by producing a new form of government, instead of merely adjusting the former supreme law, known as the Articles of Confederation.
“Able, articulate men used newspapers, pamphlets and public meetings to debate ratification,” according to the official US National Archives. It was a “fierce, national debate on the merits of the Constitution”, as a legal history of the United States puts it.
Could Thainess be more different? The debate in Thailand is scheduled for three months, with the public excluded. The army commander, twice in a week, warned mere citizens to keep their noses out of places where they aren’t wanted or authorised.
As of now, no one is out on the proverbial limb, predicting the result of a referendum, no matter how it is framed. One of the top two likely results is that a blasé public will pass the darned thing just to move on, as voters did in 2007. The other is that a fired-up electorate will figuratively torch the draft because it’s too big, too restrictive and too much a tool of the green shirts. Other outcomes are possible.