The referendum proved nothing

The National Council for Peace and Order is no doubt relieved that 61.4 percent of voters, who cast the ballot, approved its draft constitution in Sunday’s referendum. It was a nod, at least, toward its legitimacy in running the country, and for the moment will quiet its critics overseas. What the “yes” vote was not, however, was a mandate to cling to power and continue restricting rights. 

The junta cannot interpret the referendum outcome as a show of admiration for Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and his style of governing, nor a vote of confidence in the indefinite pursuit of reforms. Critics of the junta in fact see the referendum result as a sign that people want the generals out of the way soon, particularly with the economy stalled, so that a democratic election can take place and a civilian administration can take over.

There is a deeper message in the result. This was the second time in recent history that Thais voted on a constitution. Both referendums came amid political conflict, staged by military juntas seeking approval for charters they had authored. Nearly 58 per cent of 45 million voters sanctioned the 2007 constitution, but, tellingly, more than 62 per cent of citizens in the Northeast voted against it. That referendum took place in circumstances that were far freer than we had this year. Public debate on the draft was permitted, as were organised campaigns for and against it. No one was arrested for challenging the charter. The process leading up to the referendum was transparent and fair.

In stark contrast, preparations for this year’s vote were tightly restricted, activities curtailed by a special referendum law that stymied open debate, barred opposing campaigns and led to the arrests of scores of students, politicians and others.

Opinion surveys established that few voters comprehended the constitution draft prior to the vote. Nearly 40 per cent had read some of it, more than 57 per cent none of it, and a mere 3.4 per cent had sifted through all of it, according to a King Prajadhipok Institute poll. A huge number of people arrived at voting stations still undecided. The rest were basing their decisions on factors other than the actual content of the charter. While the clauses of the proposed constitution made for difficult reading even for astute observers, the referendum itself was unnecessarily complicated with its added question about letting non-elected senators choose the prime minister. The voters on Sunday were clearly confused – more than 800,000 ballots were deemed spoiled in some way and thus invalidated.

With 61.4 per cent approving the charter this time, the proportion between “yes” and “no” remained unchanged from 2007 at roughly 6:4. Opposition was again strongest in the Northeast, abetted in the upper North and deep South. The rest of the country, especially the capital, overwhelmingly voted yes. It is too simplistic for the junta to dismiss the negative reaction in the upper North and Northeast as demonstrations of abiding support for the Pheu Thai Party whose government it toppled in the 2014 coup. No political party was in a position to campaign for or against the draft, whereas the military extended its manipulation across the country. The negative outcome in the South was surely a reaction to the military oppression there ever since the violent insurrection began in 2004.

The only real lesson to be drawn from this episode is that Thailand has had two coups and two constitutional referendums in less than a decade and we have yet to see any significant change in the political deadlock or indeed the public mindset. The more coups we endure, it would seem, and the deeper the national divide.