The 'popular constitution' of 1997 that was lost
Thai constitution monument located on Ratchadamnoen road, Bangkok
Now that discussions about amending the current constitution regularly make the news, it can do no harm to look back at the much-lauded former constitution of 1997. That constitution is known as the 'people's constitution' (more, rát-thà-tham-má-noen chàbàb prà-chaa-chon) and is still a special and unique specimen. It was the first and last time that the people were intensively involved in the drafting of a new constitution. This is in stark contrast to, for example, the current constitution, which is established through a junta government. That is also why there are organizations that try to restore something of what took place in 1997. What made the 1997 constitution so unique?
How did the constitution come about?
After the bloody days of May 1992, the country was, once again, licking its wounds. In the period 1992-1994, the call for a new constitution grew, starting with a small group of intellectuals and activists. Support for this slowly grows and more and more and at the end of 1996 a committee is appointed to actually write a new constitution. 99 members took part, including 76 delegates from the provinces (one delegate from each of the 76 provinces). More than 19.000 people had registered for the delegation from the province, mainly lawyers but also businessmen and retired bureaucrats. These people were allowed to nominate 10 people per province, and it was up to parliament to choose a single candidate from this selection for each. These 76 members were supplemented by 23 experienced scholars in the field of jurisprudence, public administration, etc.
On January 7, 1997, this committee started work, subcommittees were set to work in each province and public hearings were held. A first draft constitution was ready at the end of April. This first version received the support of an overwhelming majority of the 99 committee members. This first concept was subsequently widely reported in the press. After further intensive public debate, consultation and tinkering, the committee came up with the final concept at the end of July. With 92 votes in favour, 4 abstentions and 3 absentees, the committee approved the draft constitution and presented it to the parliament and senate on 15 August.
Protest calling for constitutional change (Adirach Toumlamoon / Shutterstock.com)
The new constitution brought a number of major changes for the (elected) members of parliament and the (up to then appointed) members of the Senate. Strong resistance was therefore expected, but precisely in July 1997, a serious crisis broke out with the fall of the Baht. This crisis would become known internationally as the Asian Financial Crisis. Reformist took advantage of the moment by putting considerable pressure: the new constitution would contain the necessary political reforms to limit corruption and increase transparency, and thus provide the much-needed tools to get out of the crisis.
The exact details of the constitution thus became less important.
The members of parliament also did not have the authority to come up with all kinds of amendments in order to further tinker with the constitution. The choice was simply to approve or disapprove. There was also a stick behind the door: if parliament rejected the constitution, a national referendum would follow on whether or not to adopt the constitution. With 578 votes in favour, 16 against and 17 abstentions, the parliament and senate approved the new constitution. The new constitution came into force in October 1997.
The most important features
The rights and freedoms in the constitution were the selling point, a new path was really taken. Two main pillars of the new constitution were:
- introducing better control mechanisms, separation of powers and transparency.
- increasing the stability, efficiency and fairness of parliament and cabinet.
What was special was the import of imports from independent institutes. So came one:
- Constitutional Court: to test cases against the highest law of the land)
- Ombudsman: to review complaints and refer them to the court or constitutional court
- National Anti-Corruption Commission: to combat corruption among members of parliament, senate or senior officials.
- State Control (audit) Commission: for inspection and control of the finances vis-à-vis the members of parliament and senate.
- National Human Rights Commission: to deal with citizens' complaints about human rights violations.
- Electoral Council: for organizing and supervising the proper and fair conduct of elections
These independent institutions were to serve as a better control mechanism towards the government. In many cases, the senate had an important role in appointing the members of the independent institutions mentioned above. This was preceded by a complex selection system with extra-parliamentary committees to limit political influence.
Also new was that under the new constitution the senate, an impartial legislative chamber, would no longer be appointed by the king or the government, but would henceforth be directly elected by the people. Candidates must not be affiliated with a political party and cannot serve two consecutive terms.
For the new constitution, the committee was inspired by the German model, including in terms of voting, motions, and so on. Another important reform was that, in order to ensure the stability of the cabinet, more power was given to the prime minister. Thai politicians also tended to change political parties regularly, the requirement that candidate MPs had to be a member of a certain party at least 90 days before the start of new elections was supposed to prevent this behaviour. This made it less attractive to blow up a coalition prematurely.
All in all, it was a document with major reforms and many new elements. The constitution was named “people's constitution” because it was composed by deputies from all provinces. During the drafting of the draft constitution, there were also various public hearings in which all kinds of organisations, institutions and parties were involved. There was hitherto unprecedented public input.
Why "popular constitution"?
But was it really a constitution of the people? A constitution written by the people is not necessarily a constitution for the people. For example, there are question marks over the requirement that MPs and Senate members must have higher education diplomas. According to the committee, many people indicated that they wanted such a requirement, but it should be noted that the citizens who took part in the talks were often more highly educated. The input and influence of average citizens without impressively high education, 80% of the inhabitants were farmers, workers and so on, fell a bit by the wayside.
The rules on the distribution of seats in parliament favored the larger parties, which were allocated proportionally extra seats. This then prevented the fragmentation of parliament and thus provided stability, it really also meant that it was more difficult for minorities to obtain a vote in parliament, as would be the case with a representative distribution of seats.
The new “neutral” and independent bodies were filled with middle-class Bangkok professionals. In theory, experienced, objective and competent persons were appointed, for example, the members of the Constitutional Court were selected partly by members of the court, the Supreme Court, but also partly by the senate. In practice, however, political influence could not be completely ruled out.
A military coup and new constitution:
In 2006, the military seized power again, undoing many of the groundbreaking changes. The military junta itself put together a committee to write a new constitution (2007), so this was in stark contrast to the constitution of 1997. Instead of broad public input, it was now the powers-that-be who laid the new foundation would lay, in order to secure their grip and influence. The population had to make do with a referendum in which it only had to choose between rejecting or approving the new constitution. In addition, the military junta warned that they would stay on if the population rejected the constitution. Campaigns against the new constitution of 2007 were banned…
After the coup of 2014, a similar scenario played out with regard to the constitution of 2017. The senate was composed by the military and also gained more power (including voting for the prime ministerial candidate). The junta also selected the members of the 'independent' bodies such as the Electoral Council and partly of the Constitutional Court, thereby also asserting the power and influence of the powers-that-be there. The road that had been taken in 1997 had clearly come to an end.
iLaw and offering signatures calling for constitution rewrite, led by Jon Ungpakorn (former senator, brother of fugitive Jiles Ungpakorn, both sons of the famous Puey Ungpakorn of Thammasat University) – [kan Sangtong / Shutterstock.com]
Resources and more:
- Myths and realities: the democratization of Thai politics. By Tamada Yoshifumi. Kyoto University Press (20009), ISBN 9781920901417.
- Thailand's Crisis and the Fight for Democracy. By Giles Ji Ungpakorn. WDPress (2010), ISBN 9780956514509.
- http://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/Paper_on_the_1997_constitution_2.pdf
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Thailand_(1997)
- https://prachatai.com/english/node/9563
The tragedy of the repeatedly failing democracy in Thailand lies not so much with the constitution, but with the reality that the country has no real political parties (FFT perhaps the exception). Thai political parties are not formed by an ideology as we know it in the west, but by provincial "godfathers" and their immediate family, who can use their local influence to win as many votes as possible. A party platform with clear policy proposals does not exist in that world. It's about winning and the rest is secondary.
How wonderful would it have been if the senate and independent bodies actually became independent from politics from the constitution of 1997. Unfortunately, the senate was filled with family of the provincial "godfathers" and these in turn elected the members of the independent bodies .
For example, the 1997 constitution led to a situation comparable to the current situation. The government, the parliament, the senate, the constitution court, the corruption commission, are all interlinked and hold each other in power. It was no different under Thaksin, who took advantage of the 1997 constitution by bringing the provincial “godfathers” under 1 party.
The young generation likes to see a lot of changes, and rightly so. It is just a pity that their protests have focused on issues that demand far too great a change in Thai society. It would have been better if they had focused exclusively on corruption and inequalities in society. Working step by step on improving society.
You are largely right, Petervz, about the failing role of political parties in Thailand.
I would like to nuance it somewhat. For example, Thailand had a Communist Party (1951 to 1988) and a Socialist Party (1970? - 1976). Both parties were banned. In February 1976, Boonsanong Punyodyana, chairman of the Socialist Party, was assassinated.
You mention the FFT as an exception. Justifiably. But that is precisely the example of how parties with a good program are not tolerated. The FFT, Future Forward Party, was disbanded on ridiculous grounds and is now the MFP Move Forward Party. Life is also made difficult for the original chairman, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.
The Thai Rak Thai Party also had a good and appreciated program that was quickly implemented. That party also collapsed. I won't go into details...and won't name names...
As long as the current constitution continues to exist (the power of the senate!), I do not believe that a step-by-step improving society is possible.
I believe that the current, young generation sets the right goals, yes, sometimes big changes, I don't think too big improvements. They are now paying for it in prison.
@Petervz,
I can agree with this reaction and think that the problem also lies in the system that the elderly with their old-fashioned thinking can or may still be active. In about 10 years it will be the people who have seen the world and also realize that Thailand is not an island. In recent years, the changes have always continued, but they hardly make the news unless of course it is negative. There really is light at the end of the tunnel but don't let time be the most important factor.
You are largely right, Petervz, about the failing role of political parties in Thailand.
I would like to nuance it somewhat. For example, Thailand had a Communist Party (1951 to 1988) and a Socialist Party (1970? - 1976). Both parties were banned. In February 1976, Boonsanong Punyodyana, chairman of the Socialist Party, was assassinated.
You mention the FFT as an exception. Justifiably. But that is precisely the example of how parties with a good program are not tolerated. The FFT, Future Forward Party, was disbanded on ridiculous grounds and is now the MFP Move Forward Party. Life is also made difficult for the original chairman, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.
The Thai Rak Thai Party also had a good and appreciated program that was quickly implemented. That party also collapsed. I won't go into details...and won't name names...
As long as the current constitution continues to exist (the power of the senate!), I do not believe that a step-by-step improving society is possible.
I believe that the current, young generation sets the right goals, yes, sometimes big changes, I don't think too big improvements. They are now paying for it in prison.
Good article, Rob V!
Unfortunately, a similar popular constitution will remain on the wish list for a long time to come, because not only Thailand but the entire region tends towards the Chinese coercive model of take it or leave it.
A solid piece that I can identify with. You mention the independent institutes, see below. These are no longer independent, but have been wholly or largely taken over by the current regime. :
Constitutional Court: to test cases against the highest law of the land)
Ombudsman: to review complaints and refer them to the court or constitutional court
National Anti-Corruption Commission: to combat corruption among members of parliament, senate or senior officials.
State Control (audit) Commission: for inspection and control of the finances vis-à-vis the members of parliament and senate.
National Human Rights Commission: to deal with citizens' complaints about human rights violations.
Electoral Council: for organizing and supervising the proper and fair conduct of elections
That was also the case under the 1997 constitution after De Thai Rak Thai won. The problem of a politics without any ideology. The 2 rooms were not called the Poea-mia rooms for nothing. See also my response above.
That is true, dear Petervz, but I cannot escape the impression that after the coup d'état of 2014 those independent institutes have come to rely even more on the powers-that-be.
A good example of a lack of ideology is the fact that politicians switch to another party without batting an eyelid. There is a targeted ideology within the core of the FFT (KK), but there too you see many opportunists, most of whom now belong to another (government) party. Retaining their seat. Politics in this country is really a mess. The current Senate is a response
Quote:
"Politics in this country is a real mess."
I agree with that. But surely the coup of 2014 would put an end to that? What went wrong? Or is it just the coup d'état?
And is it now waiting for a new (or old) billionaire to serve the common people…or will he first have to recoup his investment in buying votes?
Buying votes? In recent decades, people have indeed taken money from a party and then voted for the party of their choice. See the article in the Bangkok Post (2013):
https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/383418/vote-buying-claims-nothing-but-dangerous-nonsense
Vote buying claims nothing but dangerous nonsense
Somewhere in 2011, my wife called me to ask if I could also have a nice meal with her and her friends in a restaurant. I couldn't refuse that offer.
There were about 8 ladies at the table. I asked if there was something to celebrate. Well, they said, we went to a Democratic Practice meeting and we all got a thousand baht. 'So are you going to vote for that party too?', I asked. Laughter 'Of course not, we vote for Yingluck!' .
It is precisely the untrue story that those stupid farmers all buy votes, which undermines political confidence.
Ferdinand, read this article from the 2013 Bangkok Post
https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/383418/vote-buying-claims-nothing-but-dangerous-nonsense
'The allegation of vote buying is dangerous nonsense'
In 2011 my wife called me if I wanted to attend a dinner with her friends. There were six ladies at the table and I asked what they were celebrating. They said they each received 1000 baht at a Democratic party rally. I asked if they were going to vote for that. 'No', they shouted in unison, 'we're going to vote for Yingluck'.
They take money and vote for their preferred party.
I will at once confess that I hold the Ungpakorns, father and sons, very highly. My hats off to Jon and iLaw, even if it hasn't paid off or not yet. It is important to keep the focus on the importance and necessity of writing a somewhat decent constitution with bottom-up input.
The Constitution of 97 was a major improvement, not yet another document imposed from above (then you quickly end up with a monstrosity of an elitist rag), but finally a law that has its roots from below. Unfortunately, the input from below could have been a lot better if the lowest class, the farmers and workers, were more involved. The Constitution of 97 is more one of the white collars, the better middle class. And he too often looks down on farmers, street vendors and so on. The Constitution of 97 shows a certain contempt for those people, that well-known stereotype of stupid buffalos who sell their votes for a tip. That things are different, that the plebs do not sell their vote to the person who rains some 100 notes, but that they choose a candidate from whom they think or hope that they will bring concrete measures and benefits, well...
But perhaps more about that in a future piece about democracy in Thailand, in which I hope to deal with vote buying, the godfathers and the role of notables. Or the audience of Thailand Blog must be tired of my pieces about democracy by now.. 😉 something about human rights then? A short bio of Jon and Jiles? Or perhaps find an interesting Thai (m/f) to interview again? 🙂
Keep writing about democracy, dear Rob V. Maybe a story about one or more of those young protesters who are now in prison?
A short bio of Jon and Jiles is also nice. I wrote about papa Ungpakorn here.
https://www.thailandblog.nl/achtergrond/puey-ungpakorn-een-bewonderingswaardige-siamees/
Rob V., I am for freedom-happiness so feel free to continue with your subject, I will do that with Thai literature and with other things that interest me. Others prefer to write about visa rules and corona shots, and others like to see news. So you notice that we are not pre-programmed robots…
Then this blog stays at home in all markets and those who don't want to read it, well, they just skip it, right?
Thank you Rob,
Another interesting background article.
In the past you have repeatedly written on this forum, among other things, that you prefer this constitution.
Now I understand why and I think the 1997 constitution is one of, if not the best Thai constitution of the past 90 years.
Unfortunately, it has turned out that this constitution is not yet a guarantee for a full-fledged democracy.
petervz already refers above to the (political) culture in which the general interest of a stable nation aimed at prosperity for everyone is subordinate to patronage, one's own clan and personal interests.
Only when that culture is tackled/made impossible in the constitution can there be a full-fledged democracy in which the interests of all residents are taken into account.
Dear Theo, you cannot change a patron of (local and capital) notables who do everything they can to secure their position of power and influence, even if they shout "plebs" (and yes, of course I write that with an ironic wink). for participation, freedom, democracy and the establishment of rights, obligations and so on.
But things are not one-way traffic (I'll put on a dialectical materialist hat), things influence and change each other. So a new constitution can of course also set a good example, even if the conditions for a more just society have not yet been created in practice. In any case, there are certainly lessons to be learned from the story surrounding the 97 Constitution.