How about a full-scale charter debate on TV?

We’ve been watching Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha on television for a couple of years now, with the regular broadcasts revolving around what he believes is “best” for the country. This means there shouldn’t be a problem if some airtime is allocated for what he often calls his biggest agenda. Constitutional “reform” will reach its climax this year when the charter worked out by much-taunted military appointees is put to a national referendum. A credible TV debate on the compilation would do Prayut and the whole of Thailand a world of good.

There have only been vague promises of fair public debates, but this is not enough. There must be a TV slot set for an official debate and nationwide scrutiny of the so-called constitutional reform, which is attracting both proponents and opponents. 

The forum must feature key critics of the proposed charter and its most vocal advocates. This will best serve the Thai people, enabling them to make informed decisions before the day of the referendum.

Thais have been generally divided into those who will vote for the draft no matter what and those who will choose “No” simply because they don’t like the way the “reform” is being spearheaded by the military. 

There seem to be only a few people who really care about the “content”, and the absence of real, reliable debates would only serve to amplify the perceived irrelevance of what is included in the charter.

Some politicians have pointed out “flaws” in it. Others have indicated they will urge the public to “snub” the military, or teach it a lesson, by voting it down. The former group should be fully heard, and so should the latter group. The latter camp has a lot of convincing to do, though, because asking the public to put down the military can bring poisonous politics into play, which can throw everything back to square one.

The content deserves thorough, fair and open scrutiny. That military appointees wrote it should not be used as an excuse to balk at all proposed changes to the political system without really looking at them. If some ideas are “dictatorial” or look like a conspiracy to keep the military in power, let’s talk about that on TV and let the public decide.

A TV forum is as vital as the charter or referendum. Properly held, it could help clarify the “legitimacy” questions hounding the whole reform process. Most importantly, it will give a sizeable number of Thais an educated overview of the charter before they cast their ballots.

There has been mostly an unhealthy exchange between pro- and anti-military pundits. The truth is that rule books aren’t necessarily applicable when Thailand’s political strife is concerned. One example is the Senate. Whether the upper chamber should be directly elected, or totally appointed, or half-elected and half-appointed has been a question that invites various ideas, but people in disagreement never have had a chance to argue the issue face-to-face. Some Thais may have been exposed to one line of thought more than the other, but a TV debate would help care of this problem.

Prayut has insisted he intervened in democratic politics to avert a civil war. His critics – and there are plenty – saw that as an insult to the intelligence of his compatriots, as he was implying that they could not solve their political problems democratically. If he gives the green light to a fair TV debate on the charter, his perceived lack of respect for the political conscience of his fellow citizens will be reconsidered. 

But, ultimately, this is not about him. This is about the country that he has professed unconditional love for.