Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra: Happy to divert attention from his political woes.

Thailand enshrined the referendum concept in its 1997 Constitution, but no referendum has been held yet. Charter writers included the mechanism to facilitate public participation in decision-making.

Since coming to power five years ago, the government has deliberately neglected to ask voters about a number of contentious issues, such as the privatisation of Egat, the Thai-Malaysian gas pipeline and the planned free-trade agreement with the United States.

Last week, the government made a big turnaround. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra proposed holding a referendum on whether to amend the Constitution.

Suddenly, the referendum proposal became a hot topic at every coffee shop, and Thaksin talked about it non-stop after floating the idea on Thursday.

Myriad questions were asked about the subject and few seemed to notice that Thaksin hyped the proposal to divert attention from his dwindling popularity – and a further big rally at Royal Plaza.

If he was serious about the referendum, he neglected to do his homework about the process.

Under Article 214 of the Constitution, a referendum must be announced and published in the Royal Gazette no less than 90 days before the vote.

Thaksin repeatedly said the referendum should coincide with the Senate election on April 19, which is barely 60 days away.

But even if the government is able to decide on a new date for the referendum, there would be another quandary.

Paragraph 2 of Article 214 stipulates that a referendum’s purpose is to solicit public opinion on an issue that cannot be in conflict with the Constitution.

Charter writers never envisioned the referendum as a mechanism for amending the Constitution. Rather, they drafted Article 313 to spell out the legislative process for revising the charter. The reason for ruling out referendums as a vehicle for rewriting the charter was simple – it is impossible to ask a yes-or-no question on complex issues entailing the basic law.

Even if voters were to be asked to choose whether or not to revise the charter, the answer would be meaningless because no alternative provisions were presented to help them decide.

Thaksin apparently is trying to use the referendum as a pretext to kill constitutional amendments, banking on the public inclination to stick with what they know rather than venture into the unknown.

It would be unlikely for voters to cast ballots in favour of rewriting the charter when they have no idea about an alternative. Furthermore, a democratic society would uphold its basic law rather than tear it up.

Even if voters took the risk for change, Thaksin would still have the last word on the matter.

Any new round of political reform to break power concentrated in the hands of Thaksin would spiral down into an illusory proposal. A “yes” vote would hand him complete control over the drafting of constitutional amendments.

Under the existing legislative process, civic groups, independent organisations, senators and MPs have equal footing with the government to sponsor constitutional amendments.

But following a referendum, the Cabinet alone would have the say on the drafting process.

Thaksin sparked the debate on a referendum to buy time for public anger about his Shin sell-off to cool, critics say. If he intended to hold a referendum he would have taken the time to study the relevant provisions before talking about it.

Behind Thaksin’s hot air there don’t appear to be real solutions for problems in the charter or reconciliation with his opponents.

Avudh Panananda

The Nation