• 
• 

Published on August 3, 2007

Although the campaigns for and against the junta-sponsored draft constitution are at full steam, people in the anti-charter camp are facing a highly theoretical question about the consequences of voting against the draft charter and being defeated in the referendum.

Those who will be going to the August 19 national referendum to vote against the draft charter will have to ask themselves whether they will cease to oppose it if the result goesagainst their wishes.

They also complain that the Election Commission didn't add another box on the ballot paper for those who wish not to either endorse or reject the draft charter but to reject the whole drafting process, which they see as illegitimate. The fact that they will vote 'no' means they have chosen to take part in this imperfect and arguably illegitimate process.

The EC claimed that by the time it was informed about the lack of a third choice, it was too late for it to change the ballot paper.

No matter how unjust the rules set by the junta are - such as not informing the public which old charter might be revived and how, and trying to link endorsement of the draft with an early general election - there can be no denying that those voting 'no' will be expected to accept the result if they ended up losing. Otherwise they will be accused of being sore losers who refuse to accept the outcome of the game.

A number of such people, however, have vowed to continue opposing the draft charter, even after August, and they reason that something higher than a so-called sense of sportsmanship is at stake. It remains to be seen how this may go down with the public after the referendum and if victory goes to the side of the junta.

Recently, one Thammasat University academic urged fellow anti-coup citizens to boycott the referendum because the whole process is illegitimate and a sham. By not taking part in the process, they can then feel that they have the legitimacy to continue opposing both the charter and the junta after August 19.

While such a stance sounds morally grounded, in practice those who follow historian Somsak Jiamtheerasakul's call risk having their voice of resistance being drowned out by others who may simply not bother to cast their vote at all through apathy.

The question is: How will the public ever know how many people didn't go out to vote because they saw the whole process as illegitimate and undemocratic?

Somsak suggested that the opposition should gather on the day in a designated spot to make their voices heard. Still, there is no knowing how many who oppose the draft charter are with Somsak. Even the September 19 Network Against the Coup admitted that it's too late to abandon the vote-against campaign. Both groups are left with significant questions to answer, with no easy way out.

The whole problematic process began when the Council for National Security, which staged the coup and nullified the so-called 1997 People's Constitution, decided to hold a referendum for its

own draft charter. 

While it claims the new charter will introduce more checks and balances on elected politicians, the same cannot be said about the military, which will receive greater powers and a huge budget increase from the state's coffers under the draft charter.

 Prasong Soonsiri, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, suggested yesterday that if the draft charter is rejected, the junta and the government should simply revise the same draft charter and reintroduce it.

Those opposing the coup may be charged with being "idealistic" but as time goes by and more evidence emerges of the junta wanting to hang on to power, it's worth asking who are the real "naive idealists".

Are the real "naive idealists" people who oppose the coup, though small in number, or those in the majority who think that a coup and military dictatorship is a short-cut towards the restoration of Thai democracy?

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation