Confused approach to political reforms will lead

Following the Black May, 1992 incident, it took almost four years for politicians to reckon with the unstoppable movement to reshape the political landscape. By 1996, the Constitution Drafting Assembly led by former prime minister Anand Panyarachun came up with sweeping changes to herald a new chapter of popular democracy.

The charter promulgation happened a year later. But the full enforcement of charter provisions took place after the 2001 general election.

Five short years later the fruits of reform turned toxic due to the autocratic leadership of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The 2006 coup brought about the 2007 Constitution.

The coup-sponsored charter rewrite, however, has failed to end the political turmoil that started in 2005.

If a lesson can be drawn from the previous round of political reform, the revamp of the political system is a long and arduous process. And there is no guarantee that revamped rules could end political rifts.

It is unrealistic to expect a quick fix in politics. In 1997, the country had high expectations on constitutional provisions designed to advance democracy and civil society. But politics ended up veering off course because autocratic Thaksin manipulated the rules resulting in the collapse of the system of checks and balances.

Last year the country welcomed its new charter endorsed by a first-ever national referendum. Nevertheless street protests escalated to new heights.

In light of the political quagmire, 24 university rectors issued a statement last Friday calling for a new round of political reform. They have pinned hopes on putting politics back on course by changing the rules.

The varsities have advanced a proposal to form an independent commission to draw up recommendations on necessary reforms, which would be subjected to a national referendum before activating the process for charter rewrite.

Even though it is clear that the fresh round of reform, if it happens, should focus on boosting direct participation by the people in all aspects of the political system, it is unfortunate that the varsities stop short of outlining the preliminary ideas on how to rally the people as a counter-balancing force to partisan politics.

In the 1996 round of reform, the Anand-led assembly already had a road map before taking about a year to spell out the tangible details.

For the upcoming round, it is virtually impossible to imagine how long it would take to complete the reform process when no one seems to know how to accomplish political ideals in the world of real politics.

Social critic Prawase Wasi recently distributed his statement advocating direct participation by the people as a cure to what he terms as unjust politics although he did not elaborate on tangible measures he envisions on the role of the people.

He coined the term "civil democracy" to depict his political utopia. In 1994 he was appointed by the House to map out a report on political reforms. His mission collapsed and no practical solutions emerged.

For the past two weeks, the People's Alliance for Democracy has boasted about its so-called "new politics", packaging it as a cure for political maladies. In spite of brainstorming sessions, it has yet to outline its model for new politics.

Selected student and labour groups are pushing for progressive ideas like a direct election for prime minister, which surprisingly reflect the thinking of the pro-government camp as expounded in the so-called Finland Declaration.

In 2005 the Thaksin administration was quick to champion political reforms, seen as a ploy to wriggle out of being cornered by the PAD. Its attempt to name its proxy to lead the reform was transparent and failed.

The Somchai Wongsawat government appears reluctant to jump on the bandwagon of reforms. But this might be its tactics to avoid repeating the mistake committed under Thaksin. Once independent advocates could wrestle the reform movement from the PAD, the government might then step in to claim victory.