Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
Abhisit’s decision to back away from constitutional reform will help erode the blur of legitimacy that his government has enjoyed.
Coming to power in the most dubious circumstances, and on the back of an explicitly anti-democratic campaign waged by the yellow-shirts, one of Abhisit’s best assets was the promise of constitutional reform that could provide a platform for a general election and, possibly, a degree of national reconciliation. The prospects of constitutional reform (along with the global financial crisis) helped to blur the political battle lines somewhat, positioning Abhisit as a national caretaker who would guide Thailand through tumultuous times.
By baulking at constitutional reform, Abhisit has brought the divisions back into focus. There is now a much clearer choice between the people’s constitution of 1997 and the general’s constitution of 2007. Abhisit’s action has highlighted the fact that he owes his prime-ministership to the un-democratic chain of events set in place by the coup of September 2006.
Of course Abhisit, and other supporters of the 2007 constitution may argue that it was endorsed by a national referendum and that it was approved by the king. But neither argument holds weight.
The referendum of 2007 was a farce. This is what I wrote at the time:
The referendum is a take-it-or-leave-it offer: if you want elections and a semblance of stability then vote yes. For those considering a no vote there is only the option of handing power to the constitutional vandals to nominate a constitution of their choosing. Unlike the referendums that most of us are used to, in this case there is no clearly defined constitutional status quo that would be the outcome of a successful no vote.
And remember that the outcome of this farce was that the constitution was endorsed by only 14.7 million of Thailand’s 45 million voters.
And what of the king’s signature? This is a tricky argument for Abhisit to pursue. Most fair-minded observers would recognise that the king’s endorsement was ceremonial formality. Such ritual acts of approval are what kings (and queens) are good at in modern constitutional monarchies. To argue that the royal signature represented more than that would be to suggest that the king actually endorsed a model of constitutional change that combined illegal military intervention with a no-choice referendum.
Surely that’s not the case!
Andrew, I’m not sure about your legitimacy or lack of it. Isn’t the Thai Parliament still controlled by elected MPs and where MPs have been removed for electoral crimes haven’t elections taken place to replace them?
The fact that many MPs from both government and opposition parties are controlled by regional political or criminal bosses probably points to the need of stronger constitutional rules not weaker or less.
As far as I know in both the UK and Australia as long as a majority of MPs want a certain government then it is a legitimate government.
0
0
So the original US constitutional vote was also a farce as there was no constitutional status quo to be returned to if the vote had been no and of course there was a very undemocratic quorating of a vote at one point there too! Thailand is not a developed democracy but a developing democracy, as was the US back then. As such what we expect in developed western democracies is not going to necessarily be appropriate to Thailand. Note this is an arguement frequently used by the red side supporters to jusitfy any of there more undemocracitc or violent actions or links to undemocratic or violent groups.
Les Abbey points out the legitimacy of any government in the parliamnetary system is conferred by the parliament as government is not directly elected.
The constitutional referendum also met the criteria it was held under.
This whole post is a campaign mode post rather than a balanced analytical one which is fair enough if this is pointed out. However, it should in no way be considered on an academic level anything other than an opinion piece by a bias observer making a one sided case.
I would also ask why is it only a matter of choice between two constitutions. That is the line of one side in the conflict, which also seems to be the thrust of this entire post. However, why cant the good points of both be considered? The 2007 does provide the people with greater protections and rights than 1997 which is something nobody seemingly wants to discuss. Not that polticians of any ilk ever really cared about such things but one would have thought that maybe academics would.
0
0
If I recall correctly, the main comparison the Democrat Party leadership drew was not to parliaments in Australia, the UK or the US system but to Israel. They were keen to emphasize an approach rather than practice, as the latter would not make them look legitimate in UK and Australian terms.
0
0
Abhisit gave in to opposition push for amendments last year, as a gesture of reconciliation in the aftermath of Songkran violence.
There was a join parliamentary-senate committee that agreed on six problematic issues to fix. It was obvious none of the proposed amendments had any public interest in mind and when Abhisit finally decided to take them to a referendum (where most of them would have been certainly killed) the opposition suddenly lost interest and withdrew its support.
Current Banharn’s proposal came out of the blue and has nothing to do with the alleged deficiencies of the junta sponsored constitution.
After some posturing and veiled threats Banharn decided to fade away and swear allegiance to the coalition. His rebellion was short lived, he failed to get either Democrats or PTP on board, and so current constitution is likely to stay untouched until next elections. If Thaksin verdict passes without big troubles it is highly likely that Abhisit government will last until the end of its term. Election campaign will start in about eighteen months anyway.
0
0
Andrew, I hasten to add I didn’t mean “your personal legitimacy”, more the legitimacy of the Abhisit government you wrote about. The argument usually has to get far more heated before I use the former meaning.
0
0
I don’t see any “blur of legitimacy”.
Abhisit’s government came to power very much like 18th, 19th and even 20th century Western governments, especially English, did.
If questions over Abhisit’s legitmacy reach the point where he can not function any longer as a government, he simply calls an election. Unless there’s a coup, what’s the problem ?
0
0
Nobody – I don’t understand what you are talking about in relation to the first US Constitution.
Very obviously if the Philadelphia Congress had voted “No”, then the thirteen colonies would have resorted to Britain’s unwrittten constitution.
This is relevant today, as the 16 provinces of Isaarn begin breaking away from monarchist dictatorship, as 13 brave American colonies did.
0
0