• 
• 

Published on November 19, 2007

 At first it seemed an insurmountable task given the diverse make-up of the group to produce a uniform document that reflects the basic values of the 10 members. For whatever it is worth, the draft is now ready to be signed by leaders tomorrow in Singapore.

The charter is not perfect. Realistically it could have been bolder. But given the circumstances, it is the least objectionable outcome. Let's not forget that the charter was being drafted while the region was going through unusual political developments. For instance, the most democratic and freest members of Asean such as the Philippines and Thailand turned out to be the least effective voices in pushing for much needed liberal ideas and openness in the grouping. Whatever its constraints, newly democratised Indonesia has pushed hard in the areas where those countries failed.

Naturally, Indonesia's voice was quickly trumped by more politically stable members with clear conservative agendas. Drafters knew whose views to take seriously. Each drafter, as a government representative, knew what to say or when to lie. Spontaneity rarely occurred in this environment, which was to be expected.

Now it is incumbent on the 565 million Asean citizens to make up for the rest and assert their missing voices. Asean leaders have been saying all along that this is a people-oriented charter and was done in their name. Like pudding, one has to eat it to find out the taste. The best way to discover the charter's real spirit is to engage in Asean activities at all levels, particularly the pillars of security, economic and social and cultural activities.

In retrospect, the most valuable outcome of the charter's drafting has been the learning process that civil society organisations, grassroots groups and common folk have gone through. They now know each other better and have learned a lot from one another and Asean bureaucrats.

Even though much of their input was not included in the charter, their efforts were not in vain. In Thailand's case, civil society organisations have come to know their counterparts at the Foreign Ministry better and the same is true in the Philippines and Indonesia.

These lessons are pivotal to transforming the charter in the future. In the past three years consultations among the non-government sector, which have now been institutionalised, have been extensive and quite often idealistic. No wonder they have expressed great disappointment with the charter.

For almost four decades, Asean has always been led by a small group of elites in member countries. They have deliberately taken their own citizens for granted - in their view with good reason. At the end of the day they have to take responsibility and make decisions on issues and problems on behalf of their people.

Like it or not, a huge paradigm shift is coming. This top-down decision-making process will become outdated and will gradually transform into a more mainstream decision-making process involving stakeholders across Asean. This trend is unavoidable due to the changing nature of the challenges confronting Asean, especially in community building. Let's not forget that the Asean community is expected to become a reality within eight years.

These challenges have both internal and external dimensions. As the ongoing crisis in Burma has shown, they are often firmly interlinked. External factors and influences on the crisis have shaken Asean's core values and exposed the grouping's inability to engage its own citizens and their democratic aspirations. Other transnational challenges facing Asean include climate change, terrorism, drugs, HIV/Aids, human trafficking etc.

Obviously it will take time before the process to make Asean more mainstream comes into effect. The expansion of the consultative process Asean has with non-government sectors will accelerate and deepen this dialogue. This mechanism has yet to be institutionalised. The bottom-up shift will only work if Asean citizens have the ability to monitor and engage in the grouping's programmes as a whole and provide alternatives.

Finally Asean citizens, through free and independent media as well as non-governmental organisations, now know more about the limits of Asean cooperation and what it can and cannot do. Understanding these constraints is indeed the first stepping stone to fully engage Asean with a charter in coming months.

Before the people get to do their part, Asean lawmakers have to show their political will by reacting to the charter, whatever the consequences may be. A failure to do so within an appropriate timeframe would tarnish Asean credibility and its commitments.

It has been said several times before and is worth repeating again that Asean has made an awful lot of mistakes since its birth in 1967, but it would be a bigger mistake if Southeast Asia did not have Asean.

Kavi Chongkittavorn