A vote we can stand behind

Dedicated analysts, casual observers and of course the politicians are struggling to decipher precisely the outcome of Sunday’s referendum in Thailand, in which a majority of voters backed the draft constitution and agreed that military-nominated senators should for at least five years be allowed to help elected MPs choose the prime minister.

While the primary vote pertained to the content of the draft, the added question on empowering senators to select the head of government has been widely interpreted as ceding a greater political role to the coup-makers. Once the constitution is formally promulgated, the ruling military junta — the National Council for Peace and Order — will appoint all 250 senators.

The 59.4 percent voter turnout was far lower than that of all recent general elections except the poll of 2014, in which just 51 percent of eligible voters participated. Nevertheless, the majority decision has the inevitable side effect of burnishing the legitimacy of the junta and its post-coup government — along with their level of confidence. Certainly the 15.5 million people who cast ballots — in the first gauging of public opinion since the 2014 coup — cannot be ignored.

Also inevitable are attempts to play down that number as a fraction of the 50 million citizens who were eligible to vote. In comparison, 15.5 million is hardly a majority, they point out. What must be kept in mind, however, is that the political parties aligned with Thaksin Shinawatra won every previous election since 2001 with even fewer votes, usually around 14 million.

Politicians on both sides of the nation’s ideological divide have said they will respect the people’s decision, and some have promised party reforms in line with guidelines set out in the new constitution. Others, though, fret the country is taking a retrogressive step with the new charter.

It can be readily surmised that voters who endorsed the draft are hoping to see the improvements pledged in certain provisions of the constitution. A large part of that will indeed require politicians to initiate reforms in their parties, as well as in their own ingrained habits — not just for their own sake but also for that of their constituents and the country as a whole.

Western powers have expressed concerns about the referendum, mainly because independent campaigning and open debate were stymied ahead of the vote. What is absent from their reckoning, though, is acknowledgement that, despite military rule, many if not most Thais appreciate the curtailing of political violence that the coup brought about.

Long gone are the daily street protests, killings of protesters and innocent passersby, and arson attacks on state and commercial facilities. This is reason enough for a significant number of citizens to continue backing the generals and waive basic rights while full democracy — still an abstract concept in much of the world — is held in abeyance, a priority for another time.

Western commentators should note that there have been no protests about the referendum result and that no violence took place in connection to the voting. The balloting took place under the watchful eyes of both local and foreign observers, including embassy staff members, none of whom witnessed any events of concern. This was the national rendering of a decision critics at home and abroad must respect.

Even if Thai voters are relatively ill informed about democratic principles compared to people in Europe and North America, we can be sure that most of those who turned out Sunday, if not all, have the best of intentions about their homeland. And this could even be said about the eligible voters who failed to attend the polling, regardless of their reasons.

(The Nation/Asia News Network)
Editorial