Draft constitution rejected: Elections postponed in Thailand
Thailand will be ruled by the military Junta for even longer than expected now that the proposal for the new constitution has been rejected by parliament. Of those eligible to vote, 135 were against the draft, compared to 105 in favour.
There will be a new committee of 21 people who must come up with a new proposal within 180 days. The members are reappointed by the junta. The parliament then has to vote again and the proposal is put to the Thai people in a referendum. Because of all the procedures, elections will probably not take place until 2017.
The reason the new draft constitution was rejected was the provision that a committee of 23 people, including military personnel, would be allowed to take power if a "national crisis" loomed. Almost all parties in the country rejected that provision because it is undemocratic.
There was already a lot of criticism of the design from the opposition in advance. Voters would have less to say, Pheu Thai thought. The Democrats argued that the new constitution would cause the country to get deeper into trouble.
Source: Bangkok Post – http://goo.gl/mjxx1Z
Thailand actually has no problem forming a democratically elected government. The big problem is to find an opposition that is itself democratic enough to respect it. So that I unfortunately suspect that the next military government will not be long in coming.
I cannot escape the impression that “everyone” already knew that this proposal for a new constitution would be voted down, with the direct consequence that the election of a democratically elected government would be postponed for about a year and a half.
Is it realistic to say that this plan comes directly from the top hat of the last coup plotter/MP in order to be able to stay in the plush for about a year and a half longer in order to spread his ideas, which sometimes border on paranoia, even further across Thai society?
My apologies. MP must of course be PM.
That's nothing new, is it?
Doesn't the army always take over power when a crisis arises?
So it shouldn't have been there at all, right?
Was that another well-known move to retain power longer?
It's like being bitten by a cat or a dog.
If you vote against, the military has the power.
If you vote in favour, the military will have power, but it will be less noticeable.