Pheu Thai Dithers Over Charter Change, Leaving People's Party Isolated
The ruling Pheu Thai Party is currently facing uncertainty regarding proposed changes to Thailand's political framework, particularly concerning MP Prayut Siripanich’s draft amendment to the Defense Ministry Administration Act, which has drawn criticism for perceived interference in military affairs. This hesitation extends to two other proposed changes to the country’s political blueprint, reflecting the party's cautious approach amid opposition from conservative coalition partners.
As Parliament reconvened on December 12, Pheu Thai is poised to further explore its political strategy, particularly regarding constitutional amendments. The party's indecision is viewed as an attempt to gauge resistance and assess the political landscape, but the backlash from conservative allies has made Pheu Thai acutely aware of the risks involved in pursuing these changes.
The constitutional amendment debate is particularly critical, with two main strategies emerging: either scrapping and rewriting the junta-drafted 2017 Constitution or amending it article by article. The opposition People's Party is taking the lead in this initiative, while Pheu Thai appears to be playing a secondary role.
The People's Party has proposed 17 amendments to the Constitution, all of which are currently under consideration. A key point of contention is a proposal to amend the criteria that protect the 2017 charter from changes, specifically targeting Article 256, which outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. This article requires a “supermajority” of MPs and senators for any amendments, and critics argue that scrapping it would effectively grant a "blank cheque" for altering the Constitution, potentially undermining its anticorruption measures.
In addition to this, the People's Party and Pheu Thai MPs are advocating for a parliamentary debate on amending Article 256 to facilitate the drafting of a new constitution without the need for a public referendum, as currently mandated by the charter. The People's Party aims to expedite the process towards what they term a “people’s constitution,” with Pheu Thai likely to follow suit.
House Speaker Wan Muhammad Noor Matha now faces a significant dilemma regarding his earlier resolution not to include the second strategy—scrapping and rewriting the Constitution—on the parliamentary agenda. Given that the Constitutional Court has already ruled efforts to amend the lese majeste law (Article 112) as illegal, agreeing to a debate on scrapping the entire Constitution and its royal prerogatives could jeopardize his position, potentially leading to his removal for violating the charter.
As a result, Pheu Thai is in a holding pattern, awaiting signals from conservative factions regarding both strategies for constitutional change. The outcome of this political maneuvering could see the ruling party retreat from the debate, leaving the People's Party isolated as the sole advocate for constitutional reform.
The current situation highlights the complexities and challenges facing the Pheu Thai Party as it navigates the contentious issue of constitutional amendments. With the People's Party taking a more assertive stance, Pheu Thai's indecision may ultimately impact its political standing and influence, potentially sidelining it in the ongoing discourse surrounding Thailand's constitutional future. As the situation develops, the dynamics between the ruling party and its conservative allies will be crucial in determining the path forward for Thailand's political landscape.
