Lesson from referendum: We’re nowhere near reconciliation

A total of 27 million out of 50 million eligible voters cast their ballots, representing a 59.4-per-cent turnout, far behind the 80-per-cent target set by the Election Commission. The overall tally showed 61.3 per cent approving the draft constitution and 38.7 per cent rejecting it.

On the second question whether to allow appointed senators to jointly vote on the new prime minister with elected MPs, the “Yes” ballots accounted for 58.07 per cent while the “No” votes stood at 41.93 per cent.

As was only to be expected, the results were immediately interpreted from two different angles, depending on where you stand. Those who had campaigned against the draft charter pointed to the low turnout, questioning the legitimacy of the outcome. Those who had vowed to support the draft constitution were elated, arguing that this was a “victory” for the “pragmatists” clamouring for “political reform” before elections could be held.

The first clear “message” from the referendum was, unfortunately: We are nowhere nearer to national reconciliation than either before or after the May 2014 coup, despite pledges from all parties concerned to reach out to their rivals to put the long drawn-out conflict behind.

Almost immediately after the preliminary results of the voting were known, the supporters and opponents of the two-point referendum were pointing fingers at one another for the other side’s “questionable tactics” to win the battle of the hearts among the general populace. 

It’s not hard to predict that noisy confrontations will continue as the process of drawing up at least 10 organic laws to supplement the main charter begins to take shape. The verbal exchanges will not be debates over the merits or demerits of each detail of the new law. It would inevitably be along the so-called “pro-democracy” and “pro-military” arguments, most of which would be about heat rather than light.

The second vital message from the referendum was: We simply do not trust the politicians.

When Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva publicly declared his stand against the draft charter, he was, whether he intended it that way or not, virtually joining forces with his arch-enemy, the Pheu Thai Party, to form a political bloc that went against the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) and the Constitution Drafting Committee. Rightly or wrongly, it was seen as a new confrontation between the “professional politicians” on the one side and the military-backed charter writers on the other.

When the draft was finally passed with a reasonably big margin nationwide, the inevitable conclusion was that the majority of the voters simply did not trust the politicians. The voting pattern could also suggest that those who cast their ballots in favour of the draft were not quite ready to let the country return to the pre-coup days of street protests, slogan-shouting, bomb-throwing melee just yet.

Message number 3: This is not necessarily a vote to let the military continue in power, one way or the other, after the election.

It would be preposterous and dangerous for the NCPO leaders to assume that the vote in favour of the charter draft was equivalent to a vote of confidence for the way things have been run or how they will be managed in the near future.

In fact, the powers-that-be would have to make sure that a good part of the 38 per cent who opposed the draft charter would be included one way or the other in the process of writing the organic laws – if the national. leaders are serious about “serving the interests of the people as a whole”, that is.

Restrictions on freedom of expression must be lifted and an “inclusive” atmosphere to work out details of the new rules of the game must be created to ensure the widest possible participation before embarking on the “last leg” of the so-called road map back to parliamentary democracy.

The authorities must be blamed for the lack of an atmosphere of “free exchange of views” leading up to the casting of ballots, and the claim that “the other side” was launching a distortion campaign should not have been used as a total clampdown on a free debate on a number of controversial provisions in the draft.

Now that the referendum, held under a reasonably free and transparent system, has produced a clearcut result, those against the draft would have to accept the verdict while closely monitoring the next steps in the process that promises to return the country to an electoral track.

Perhaps the most important message arising from this referendum is: Never, never underestimate the people’s aspiration for freedom of choice. 

You can threaten their freedom to speak out but you cannot put a gun to their heads once they are alone marking the ballots.

No amount of pressure, be it from the all-powerful rulers or wildly popular politicians, could lead the people by the nose all the way to the polling booths and tell them how to vote.

As the old Chinese proverb says: You can lead a horse to the water,  but you cannot make him drink.