• 
• 

Published on April 17, 2008

Since 1932, Thailand has had 18 Constitutions and Charters, one of the highest, if not the highest number in the world. As far as my research goes, only one country - Ecuador has the same number of constitutions.

As of 2003, that country has had 18 constitutions since the creation of the republic in 1830. The majority of our charters and constitutions were the direct and indirect result of military coups. In Ecuador, it has been the result of its many "revolutions".

At the opposite end of the spectrum, among the countries with a codified constitution, Japan has the most settled record.

Japan's constitution has never been changed since its adoption in 1947, neither does it have a single amendment. We know how quickly a government in Japan comes and goes, but despite the change of governments, the supreme law of the land has been left unscathed.

Among Asean countries, Thailand possesses the dubious honour when it comes to number of constitutions we promulgated and abrogated. The Philippines, with all its political instabilities and upheavals, has had very few changes by comparison; it has had less than one-fourth the number of Thailand .

A constitution is supposed to provide outlines on how a country is to be governed. The basic framework of government. A constitution can be very detailed and specific, such as ours and India's, or broad and vague such as that of the United States.

Our 2007 Constitution has 309 articles. India's 1950 Constitution - the longest written constitution in the world, contains 395 articles, 117,369 words in English and 83 amendments. One day, with all of our ingenious tweaking and fiddling, our Constitution may claim this top position from India.

The United States, the proclaimed beacon of democracy, has one of shortest written constitutions. With it preambles and seven original articles, the US Constitution contains 4,400 words plus 27 amendments. Since 1789, over 10,000 amendments have been introduced in the US Congress but few have made it past Congressional committees, and even fewer were proposed for ratification.

The last amendment, Amendment 27 limiting congressional pay rises, became law in 1992.

There are three countries that for different reasons do not have written constitutions - Great Britain, New Zealand and Israel. In these countries, all constitutional laws are found in other places such as Acts of Parliament, common law, well-established practices, and conventions of government.

A constitution is supposed to be a necessary condition for democracy, but by no means sufficient. Zimbabwe's latest  was written under the dictator government of Mugabe. Burma may have taken the  longest time to write one, but it was recently completed by the military government, and is awaiting a referendum.

Typically, a constitution describes who has the power to govern and outlines  the limits of that authority. As a result, it provides the reflection of a country's balance of power or lack thereof. For the sake of argument, Thailand's 1997 Constitution has effectively strengthened political parties in response to our rather messy polity of coalition since the change of our political system in 1932.

An unintended result, as some critics would call it, was a "tyranny of the majority". Our current Constitution seeks to undo that "mistake" by many provisions that would considerably weaken political parties. And soon after a new government was elected under the current Constitution we are brought to another "rude awakening" that the Constitution itself is an unfit one and therefore must be changed.

Once again, we are back to square one, and to the same old habit of abrogating and promulgating. Is ours the case where everything has to change so that everything stays the same?

We can say that we all want a constitution that is best for our country. But what is the best? And for whom, really?  How do we get there?

Legend has it that there is this mysterious substance called the philosopher's stone (I do not know why or how philosophers get this honour), it was supposed to turn inexpensive metals into silver or gold. It was also believed to be an elixir of life - for rejuvenation and even immortality. For the longest time, it was the most sought after goal in Western alchemy. No one has ever found it.

Are we as a nation chasing after this philosopher's stone? What price have we paid?

In reviewing the history of our 18 constitutions and charters, I cannot help asking myself, what is it that we have had in our constitutions and our governments since 1932? All the while, we seem to be looking for a constitution that would give us a "better" government, heal our political woes, fill in the loopholes that cause political discontent, one that would take us en route to a bona fide democratic nation.

These are ideals. A reality check reveals a rather sorrier truth. Our constitutions more often than not have been used as instruments to legitimise specific political purposes of a handful of people. We also seem to think it's the letters of the law that matter most, not its spirit.

So we keep legislating and regulating. All the while, we have been looking for the philosopher's stone in our Constitution to give us democracy, or a better government.

It is said that a nation gets to have the government it deserves.

This week in Italy's general elections, Silvio Berlusconi again won a convincing victory that will give him a majority in both houses.  It was not too long ago that the man was condemned as unfit to govern, accused of having expended the majority of his energy while in power between 2001-2006 to further his own as well as his friends' business and political interests.

We have been, and will continue to be disappointed, until we realise that a constitution does not ensure a better political reality and policy. Real difference will come only when we change WHAT WE ARE (which includes by definition, our politicians), not what is written.

It is only then that the interest of the people and the country as a whole will truly matter. It is only then that we may have a constitution and government that is not of the few, by the few, and for the few. Until then, we must remember that when it comes to our constitution and democracy, we will not find the philosopher's stone.

Pornpimol Kanchanalak