While much of the world’s attention —
including that of ASEAN — has focused on the Brexit referendum, another one
that took place much closer to home has been left unnoticed. On Aug. 7, 61
percent of those who voted in Thailand’s referendum approved a new constitution
— the kingdom’s 20th version — which critics argue strengthens the military
junta’s (National Council for Peace and Order, or NCPO) grip on power at the
expense of Thailand’s parliamentary democratic system.
While the referendum passed off
peacefully, with major political leaders accepting the public’s verdict, it
should be noted that voter turnout was low at only 59 percent.
Given that the military junta had targeted
an 80 percent turnout, the numbers suggest that the majority of Thailand’s 50
million registered voters were against the new constitution and either actively
expressed their opposition by voting “no” at the ballot box or indirectly by
shunning the referendum.
Certainly opportunities to express
opposition to the draft constitution had been severely restricted in the run up
to the referendum. Activists openly campaigning for a “no” vote had been
detained by the authorities for violating the Referendum Act and face
punishments of up to 10 years in prison.
So concerned have the authorities been to
crackdown on any form of dissent that two eight-year-old girls were charged
with “obstructing the referendum process, destroying official documents and
destroying common public property” for simply tearing down voter lists posted
outside their school that they liked the color of. In such a climate, it is
questionable whether voters were really able to make an informed choice on such
a crucial decision for the kingdom’s future.
The results of the referendum mark an
important step in the military junta’s repeatedly postponed roadmap toward a
“fully functioning democracy” and pave the way for a general election to be
held next year.
While this should be welcome, the
criticisms leveled against the constitution and the referendum process should
not be ignored.
For example, the lack of public
involvement in the military-drafted constitution was highlighted by
pro-democracy activists.
Among the more controversial provisions is
one that sets forth an upper senate entirely appointed by the military junta.
Given that the referendum also saw the
approval of a proposal for the senate to have a role in appointing the next
prime minister, there are fears that the military junta will thus be able to
ensure its preferred candidate occupies Government House.
Previously only an elected member of the
lower House of Representatives could hold the office of prime minister.
On the part of ASEAN, there has been
mostly silence on the going-ons in one of its founding members.
This may be explained by member-states’
unwillingness to be seen as interfering in the domestic affairs of another; one
of the creeds of ASEAN. It may also be explained by the regional grouping’s
preference for quiet, behind-the-scenes diplomacy that seeks not to embarrass
its member-states openly.
Certainly the “ASEAN way” was successful
when it came to the case of Myanmar and ensuring it implemented its own roadmap
toward “disciplined-flourishing democracy”. At the same time, it may also
demonstrate sensitivity and understanding of the unique challenges facing
Thailand.
The kingdom is sharply polarized between
the so-called “Red Shirts” and “Yellow Shirts”, had been beset by violent
political instability before the military’s intervention and still faces
continued angst over its future given the poor health of its revered king.
Nevertheless, Thailand, along with the
other nine member-states of ASEAN, is signatory to the Bali Concord II, which
was adopted under Indonesia’s chairmanship of the regional grouping in 2003.
Considered both historic and significant, the Bali Concord II commits ASEAN to
a “just, democratic and harmonious” community.
At the time, the Bali Concord II was
widely applauded for breaking the long-held taboo over the use of the term
“democracy”, let alone the subject of “democracy”, in the lexicon of ASEAN.
The fact is that a decade since the
Concord’s adoption, it is highly questionable that one of ASEAN’s founding members
is now under the control of a military junta that has forced through a
military-drafted constitution with no civilian input, and where there was a
crackdown on public debate or activities interpreted as dissent against the
referendum process.
ASEAN must not turn a blind eye to what is
happening in Thailand and should take steps to remind the military junta of its
obligations and responsibilities to the Bali Concord II.
One concrete way of doing this would be to
put the situation in Thailand on the regional agenda in a similar way that
political developments in Myanmar regularly featured under dedicated paragraphs
in the various ASEAN Chair’s Statements and Joint Communiqués of ASEAN Foreign
Ministers Meetings over the years.
ASEAN should start by following up on the
short statement that was issued by the ASEAN leaders in December 2013 that
called “on all parties concerned to resolve the current situation through
dialogue and consultations in a peaceful and democratic manner”.
An updated statement would help keep the
spotlight on the military junta and put some pressure on Thailand to uphold its
promise.
Given that ASEAN’s credibility is in
question over its handling of the South China Sea disputes, it cannot afford to
give its critics further ammunition by failing the people of one of its
founding members.
The writer A.Ibrahim Almuttaqi heads the ASEAN Studies Program at The
Habibie Center in Jakarta.
No comments:
Post a Comment