Thai Referendum a Win-Win for the Generals

Do Thailand’s ruling military generals genuinely want their latest draft constitution to pass a national referendum scheduled for August 7? While Prime Minister and National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO)  junta leader General Prayut Chan-ocha has come out firmly in defense of the controversial draft, as witnessed in a campaign of suppression against anti-charter politicians and activists, it is still not clear that the vote will pave the way for a return to democratic governance any time soon.

Thai voters will face a Hobson’s choice at the ballot box. Written by a junta-appointed committee, the draft charter includes provisions that will enshrine an overarching political role for the military in a circumscribed new democratic order. If the draft is voted down, Prayut has prevaricated on what would happen next, raising doubts that he would honor a previous pledge to hold new elections by mid-2017 regardless of the referendum result.

Prayut has used a drawn-out constitution drafting process to extend his hold on power. An earlier draft written by a separate committee was voted down in September by a junta-appointed reform council over a provision that would have created a 23-member “crisis committee” of armed forces members empowered to seize control from an elected government. Critics claimed at the time that the draft was stood as a strawman to be voted down in a cynical ploy to postpone polls promised for late 2016 and further strengthen military rule ahead of a delicate royal succession.  

The new draft, portrayed by proponents as an “anti-corruption” constitution, likewise includes controversial anti-democratic provisions. Both of the country’s main sidelined political parties, the Democrats and Peua Thai, have voiced opposition to the proposed charter. Their criticism has centered on a provision that would allow the NCPO to appoint a Senate with handpicked members of the armed forces. A second referendum question added by the junta and approved by its appointed National Legislative Assembly will ask voters to decide if the appointed Senate should be allowed to help the lower house select the premier.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva told reporters that the draft charter would dilute rights to education, health, and legal services, and diminish consumer and environmental protections enshrined in the abrogated 2007 charter. The former premier raised concerns that a military-appointed Senate would serve longer than the next elected government and that the second referendum question on the Senate’s proposed role in selecting the premier was against the popular will. He said the people should not be forced to accept a dictatorship to combat corruption. 

Peua Thai and its affiliated United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) “Red Shirt” pressure group, both backed by self-exiled former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, said they would actively campaign against the charter’s passage despite a NCPO order barring acts that could undermine social order. Watana Muangsook, a Peua Thai politician, former minister, and top Thaksin aide, was detained in military custody on April 18 for expressing what authorities deemed “divisive” opinions on the draft charter. A clutch of activists who protested against Watana’s detention were likewise arrested.

Prayut has fired back at the draft charter’s critics, claiming the real reason for their opposition is fear of new anti-corruption measures that, if implemented, will harshly sanction wayward elected officials. Yet Prayut seems reciprocally wary that any campaigns against the charter led by political parties could easily morph into a wider movement against military rule, particularly in Peua Thai’s rural strongholds. The Democrats have not indicated they will campaign against the charter’s passage; a breakaway party faction led by former protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban has averred its support.

If the military is poised to hand power back to elected politicians, it is not readily apparent in the run-up to the referendum. A bill passed in April on holding the referendum imposes ten-year jail sentences to anyone who “disrupts” the vote, both physically and through media. The draconian bill also bans the organization of transportation for voters to referendum polling stations. Authorities have also confiscated promotional materials from both main parties. In one severe case, a woman who posted a photo on social media of a red bowl emblazoned with a message from Thaksin faces a possible seven years in prison on sedition charges.

Those hard curbs on expression and association are already raising concerns about the vote’s integrity. One anonymous junta advisor quoted in local media predicted that 60 percent of the population would vote in favor of the charter. That estimate corresponds with the 57.8 percent of Thais who voted in a referendum for another military-drafted constitution in August 2007, which similarly diluted democratic provisions enshrined in the more liberal 1997 constitution. The result was widely interpreted at the time as a vote for a return to quick elections rather than a ringing popular endorsement of a more regressive charter.

A vote against the draft charter on August 7 would inevitably be interpreted as a vote against current and future military rule. The potential irony is that a “no” vote, while further denting the regime’s already questionable legitimacy, would likely extend the junta’s stay while a third draft is devised and possibly passed without popular endorsement. While Prayut has stumped strongly in support of the draft’s passage through a democratic process, the political reality is that his and the military’s interests will be served whether the referendum succeeds or fails.