Drafters need to heed, not just hear public opinion on charter

Since the charter-writing panel took office two months ago, it has constantly shown that public opinion matters. In the very first days, subcommittees were set up to facilitate communication between drafters and the people. One was the public relations subpanel, and the other gathered public comments.

What’s more, not only have drafters’ captain Meechai Ruchupan and his teammates repeatedly urged everyone to voice their opinions via the channels provided, they have also made a couple of trips in the past six-seven weeks upcountry to hear directly from the people about the constitution.

But, while gathering and hearing public comment is very important, do not be misled that it is everything about public participation. The practice involves a lot more, including providing those affected by decisions with information they need to absorb in a meaningful way and promising that the public’s contribution will influence the decisions drafters make.

Now look at what the CDC – with its slogan “Thinking, drafting and building the new Constitution together” – is doing. Its members might say they are open to comments and suggestions concerning the new charter draft. But have the comments from “ordinary people” submitted to them ever been made known? How much influence do public comments have on the charter writing process? This is not to mention how “reserved” the drafters have been all this time about the constitution, despite it being the supreme law of the country which will affect all people in general, both in obvious and subtle ways.

They might argue that the spokesmen hold daily press briefings and sometimes open their meeting rooms for the media when discussing important issues, like the selection of the prime minister and planned election methods. But those issues are just a tip of the iceberg, taking into account how much more often the media are blocked from meetings. It is not a surprise that we are so often left in the dark – such as when the spokesmen end their briefings with something like “however, these are not yet finalised. Drafters may revise the matter, if appropriate, at any time.”

So, how will people make any meaningful comments when they do not know what exactly is going on?

That point being made, the first step towards true public participation is to be transparent. Otherwise all comment gathering would not mean anything. And it should not be argued that the draft would be endorsed or not endorsed by a national referendum, anyway. That would be a little too late and should the draft be rejected, the country would lose thousands of millions of baht holding the plebiscite and paying the drafters – when such loss could be prevented by transparency.

On top of everything, it should be noted that when a boy is upset about not getting to take part in a game, he and his father could make up with the help of some ice cream. But when people are upset about being repeatedly betrayed and disrespected by the powers-that-be, I have no idea how much a reconciliation would cost. What I know is that perhaps the country, with such a deep divide, cannot afford anymore betrayal.