But that’s two months away – and the process could take months if not years. Thaksin is up to his old tricks again: Blow hot and cold and confuse your enemy at every stage.

The call for a new round of constitutional reforms is intensifying. But what does that actually mean? Depending on who you talk to, the battle cry for reform means different things to different pressure groups. The common denominator, it seems, is how does one guarantee a more efficient system of checks and balances between the powers-that-be and, if such an entity exists, the “neutral public?” Mind you, there are some very well educated people who would simply tell you that there is nothing really wrong with the present Constitution. It’s the manipulative politicians who are in dire need of reform. But to dissidents within the ruling Thai Rak Thai Party, dominated by Thaksin and his clan, a new phase of constitutional “reforms” basically boils down to one point: Abolish Article 107 (4) to free them from the 90-day “political imprisonment”.

This controversial clause stipulates that no candidate can run in a general election for the House of Representative unless he or she has been a member of a political party for 90 days. Advocates say it’s one way to put a stop on opportunist politicians looking to jump parties for their own gain. Opponents argue that Thaksin has employed this constitutional tool to hold dissidents within the party hostage.

There are, obviously, mixed feelings about this campaign, recently spearheaded by the Thai Rak Thai Party’s disgruntled faction leader Snoh Thienthong, who has made no secret of his plan to split from Thaksin to join a new party for the next election. But the party leader still holds the key. Only the prime minister is empowered to dissolve the House to call a new election and if he does that and sets an election date that is fewer than 90 days away, then none of the Thai Rak Thai Party’s dissidents would be qualified to run for a different party.

Snoh labelled this particular clause a “tyrant’s weapon” that allows Thaksin to treat his party’s MPs as nothing more than the “subservient employees of a business firm”. Those who drafted the current Constitution, known to be among the most progressive and reform-oriented in Thai political history, would argue that “unlocking” MPs from this necessary discipline would plunge the country back to the bad old days’ of irresponsible political horse-trading, back-stabbing and corruption.

The basic rationale for the inclusion of this clause was to enable the country’s political system to move ahead based on the principle that parties field their best candidates and the people vote based on the merit of the party’s platform rather than just on individuals’ qualifications. Critics might argue that those who drafted the Constitution did not envision a situation in which money politics would become so prevalent that one man would be able to exercise such overwhelming power over his party that all checks and balances incorporated into the Constitution would effectively be rendered meaningless.

It’s also argued that this constitutional tool, originally designed to create discipline among party members, has been used as a chain to keep the party’s MPs from performing their legitimate duty as public representatives with freedom and a sense of responsibility to their constituents.

To the “neutral public”, however, this remains a moot point. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the 90-day provision could be exploited by party leaders to impose an autocratic rule within the party. But then, there is also the question of the real motives behind the move launched by the “rebels”. That explains the general cynicism towards the “rebellion” within the Thai Rak Thai Party, which has been seen more as a bargaining tool to gain Cabinet seats and other privileges rather than as a serious attempt at political reform.

To the public, the real question about a new phase of constitutional reform lies in the effort to make checks and balances work in practice. That means that a concerted effort will have to be made to ensure that all “independent agencies” in charge of the anti-corruption drive, ensuring free and fair elections, and ruling on constitutional disputes and others vital responsibilities are granted genuine independence and freedom of action.

That guarantee has been fast eroding in the five years since the Thaksin government came to power. And proper checks and balances, the most important pillar of a democracy, won’t materialise unless an all-out effort is launched to overhaul the Constitution to ensure that public participation, and not electoral politics played by a handful of wealthy politicians, is the mainstay of the next round of reforms.

In other words, in the name of public interest, there are real and compelling reasons for a new round of political reforms. Thaksin may try to hijack the initiative but it’s just another delaying tactic on his part.

Thaksin has deliberately violated the basic spirit of the Constitution all along by clamping down on press freedom, subverting independent agencies, abusing “a strong prime minister’s prerogatives” for his own benefit and, most repulsive of all, he has tried every possible means to make sure that any reform fits his own agenda.

Thaksin’s claim to lead any movement towards political reform is simply absurd. Thaksinomics has run its ruinous course.
Suthichai Yoon