How do charter writers predict 'unforeseeable' scenarios?

It’s not clear who initiated the process of soliciting the NCPO’s opinion on what should be included in the new constitution. Some say the CDC’s chairman, Meechai Ruchupan, wanted to make things as transparent as possible by asking all parties concerned, including members of the public, to come up with their suggestions on what the charter should contain.

Now, the NCPO led by General Prayut Chan-o-cha must surely have its own channel of communication with the CDC members. And they don’t even have to make their recommendations public to have an impact. But as the 10 suggestions have been made public, one can only assume that both the NCPO and CDC have come to the same conclusion: Since there is no way the two sides can keep anything secret, it is advisable to simply tell it like it is.

Some of the 10 recommendations are inevitably controversial, and there is no doubt that critics will be quick to jump on them, either to oppose them or to seek clarifications. Now that the 10-point “proposal” is in the public domain, the only wise option would be to put it up for a robust debate.

One interesting point is the proposal that the new charter should be “flexible” to suit changing circumstances, meaning that the content should be written in such a way that making amendments in the future should not be made too difficult.

Why? The reason given by the NCPO is highly revealing. It says that making future amendments possible would prevent the use of force to make dramatic changes such as a coup, “which is not acceptable to countries with high standards of democracy”.

Coup leaders suggesting that the charter writers draft a constitution that would prevent another coup?

Another NCPO recommendation is that the new charter must empower the people, “making citizens genuinely powerful”. One proposal says that the new constitution must ensure that the democratic role of citizens must not be limited to casting ballots. “Even after elections, citizens must still play a role that is more important than the elected politicians. The state must be duty-bound to support the creation and development of citizens’ political knowledge and responsibility.

There is little doubt that distrust of politicians remains a strong element in the military’s thinking.

Another controversial NCPO proposal is for the new charter to provide for a “mechanism” that would overcome any stalemate in national affairs should there be a “power vacuum” in the legislative, executive or judicial branch of government.

And there is another, even more controversial idea in the NCPO’s paper: In order to protect national security from internal or external threats, the “appropriate use of military force” must be accepted – and the personnel involved in such action should not be subject to civil, criminal or administrative punishment.

These last two proposals will no doubt face the most critical scrutiny if they come up for public debate.

The core questions would inevitably be: What does the “special mechanism” to fill a “power vacuum” look like? What kind of power would be granted to this “body with special interim power?”

Even more complicated is the issue of “appropriate use of military force” to counter “possible security threats”. Who would define what constituted a “security threat” and, more importantly, who would decide what is “appropriate military force”?

When the previous charter drafting committee under Borwornsak Uwanno had proposed a “special steering committee” with extra powers to handle just this kind of “possible political accident”, it was quickly shot down by critics who detected a thinly-veiled plot to place a special body over and above an elected government.

The CDC has thus been set a difficult test: How does one draw up a charter that promises to give citizens real power appropriate to a genuine democracy while at the same time allowing the elected government’s power to be superseded by a “super body” under a range of nebulous scenarios?

CDC chief Meechai insists that his panel is open to all ideas – but that he doesn’t have to comply with proposals from the junta.

It will take all of Meechai’s considerable political experience to negotiate this cliff-hanging road and reach the destination without serious incident. To say that the next stretch of this political drama will be nerve-wracking for all concerned would be to understate the facts dramatically.