New charter unlikely under Pheu Thai

Despite the Bhumjaithai Party (BJT) leader’s staunch denial that the party has anything to do with the Senate’s decision to retain the double majority requirement for a referendum on a new constitution, it is an open secret that the second-largest member in the government coalition stands to benefit significantly from a charter rewrite.
That is due mostly to the party’s perceived ties with senators in the so-called “blue bloc”. It’s well known that a large group of senators, about 150 in total, in this camp, are affiliated with Bhumjaithai’s leaders and network.
Under the double majority requirement, there must be two public referendums: the first needs the participation of more than 50% of eligible voters, while the second requires the majority to approve it. Given such a requirement, rewriting the charter will be no mean feat, with the process likely to drag on and prove very costly.
In fact, when it comes to issues related to the constitution, what we are seeing emerge is more akin to a marriage of convenience between Pheu Thai and the BJT.
Obviously, the BJT is not particularly bothered about amending or thoroughly rewriting the charter and the ruling Pheu Thai Party has no real stance on the issue, as shown by its repeated flip-flopping in line with the changing situation.
When newly installed Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra took office following the downfall of Srettha Thavisin — over his controversial appointment of a cabinet minister in mid-August who had already served time in jail — Pheu Thai felt the urge to amend the junta-sponsored constitution with regard to the ethical standards of political officeholders. This was done in the hope its new leader would be able to avoid the fate of her predecessor.
It was a quick-fix for the ruling party, as it will considerably rewrite the whole text.
Initially, the ruling party expected that its major coalition partner, which also experienced restrictions regarding the cabinet appointment of Chada Thaiset from Uthai Thani would cooperate with its bid to change the charter.
But the BJT, probably keen to avoid risking another political backlash, distanced itself from the move, saying the country has more pressing issues to contend with.
Mr Chada finally walked away from the cabinet, taking his daughter Sabeeda — a 33-year-old political novice — to assume his role of deputy interior minister instead.
Such a firm “no” from the BJT’s leader, not to mention the fear of mass protests involving its political enemies, prompted the party to give up the by-section amendment bid.
Some may still remember the time when Pheu Thai served as the opposition leader. It joined forces with the now-dissolved MFP to rewrite the charter, with the main focus on the Senate’s provisional power to name a prime minister. This is now the past. The Senate no longer has much of a say in who will be the next prime minister.
Now that the by-selection charter change has been dropped, parliament will have to focus on the charter rewrite. This was one of its election policy pledges made with the leader of the opposition, the People’s Party, the new incarnation of the Move Forward Party. According to the law of the rule, the referendum bill is the first step.
But the BJT, as mentioned earlier, has no interest in changing the constitution. To put it bluntly, it has the most to gain from sticking to the 2017 charter. So why does it need to care about changing the status quo when it already wields decisive control over the Upper House? Note this body has the power to endorse candidates for independent agencies, like the Election Commission, Charter Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). There will be several vacancies in those agencies in a short time.
With the Senate effectively under its control, the BJT possesses enormous bargaining power, and it can press for what it wants while Pheu Thai has no other choice but to accommodate it.
And this is why the Senate opted for a double majority. But we must not forget the party can wait until the next election, when Mr Anutin will be nominated by the party as a candidate for the role of premier.
Previous referendums — for example, for the 1997 and 2017 charters — only required a simple majority. In the former case, it was a case of 14.7 million vs 10.7 million votes from a total of 25.4 eligible voters; in the latter, it was 16.8 million vs 10.5 million from a total of 29 million eligible voters.
It’s clear the House will take back the referendum bill and press for a simple majority. But that could take eight months, missing the February deadline.
The charter court says there must be three referenda before the charter is changed. It is seeking the public mandate on the need for a new charter, as well as for the formation of a charter-drafting panel. A new charter would free the country from the shadow of the junta, but this is unlikely under Pheu Thai.
Chairith Yonpiam is an assistant news editor, Bangkok Post.