What expectations do you have for the new charter compared with the 1997 Constitution?

I'm not a fan of the 1997 Constitution because it was geared towards looking for a "good person" [to run the country]. There won't be any progress if political reform ends with the search for good people. It's the same this time around and nobody is talking about [the majority of] the people.

We need to first answer the question of what is the main problem in politics. What we call a democratic system in Thailand lacks a counter-balance to power. And, the challenge is how we can enable the people to act as checks and balances with the key being rural Thailand. It does not have real participation.

But, I don't want to see decentralisation only on paper. Decentralisation must entail decentralising decision-making so local people can protect their resources and develop their economies and societies.

Some see the drafting of this charter as illegitimate and campaigns have been launched to oppose it. What about you?

I call this charter the "egoistic" charter. It's a projection of the egos of the drafters and that's why they're trapped in the nitty-gritty of mechanisms [to control and make politicians accountable].

Although in the 1997 version [drafters] went to hear various groups' opinions it was a ploy [to claim legitimacy].

Real participation by the people in the drafting is a prerequisite.

So how long will the new charter last?

I don't know but I have no faith in it. The elite often trick the grassroots. It's time to break away from this and awaken them. We're not starting from zero because they have been affected by oppression and exploitation for a long time.

Why has Thailand had so many constitutions?

Power-sharing has been between the military and politicians.

International capital flooded the country after the 1997 charter was penned and Thaksin's rule was that of local capitalism combined with international capital. So, I'm not surprised the Americans are pressuring [the current] charter drafting process. This is not sufficiency economy and [drafters] don't understand it. The public is there only to cast a vote.

Given the short-lived nature of most constitutions should people pay attention to this one? Or should they look at other mechanisms to supplement a charter?

A constitution is but a document. The challenge is how we can turn it into a document that truly reflects the aspirations of the majority.

Constitution Drafting Assembly member Chermsak Pinthong said the "patronage system" was the biggest hindrance toward making any constitution effective. What's your view?

It's time we stopped talking about abstract things. What is a patronage system? All societies have patronage systems to a lesser or greater extent. The task is how [underprivileged] people can have economic freedom and educational reform. Many deceptions have been employed against the people, especially many abstract concepts.

As long as there's no local economic development, voters will remain patronised by local politicians.

Should articles legitimising the people's struggle against coups and against the tearing up of constitutions be included in future documents?

This article is laughable. The thing is, academics [who drafted the 1997 charter] didn't try to understand society but referred to John Locke's theory of a social contract. The right to overthrow a government always exists in a democratic system. So, I don't know why we need such an article. To draft a charter and then ask the public what it thinks is a deception.