1997 Constitution of Thailand

For legal and historical context, see the Constitutions of Thailand article

The 1997 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (promulgated 11 October 1997, abrogated 19 September 2006) was widely hailed as a landmark in Thai democratic constitutional reform. It replaced the 1991 Constitution, and was replaced by the 2006 Interim Constitution after a successful military coup.

The 1997 Constitution was the first constitution to be drafted by popularly-elected Constitutional Drafting Assembly, hence was popularly called the "People's Constitution".[1] The 1997 Constitution created a bicameral legislature. For the first time in Thai history, both houses were directly elected. Many human rights are explicitly acknowledged, and measures were established to increase the stability of elected governments.

Contents

Constitution drafting process

Thailand

This article is part of the series:
Politics and government of
Thailand

Other countries · Atlas
Politics portal

The "Black May" public uprising against a military-dominated government that gained power due to the 1991 Constitution provoked public calls for a more accountable system of government. In June 1994, the Committee of Democracy Development of the House of Representatives was established during the government of Chuan Leekpai. Chuan was forced to establish the Committee following a hunger strike by prominent activist Chalard Vorachat.[2] The Committee, headed by academic Prawes Wasi, amended the 1991 Constitution but was unable to push through further reform. However, it did identify many basic frameworks which would become influential for subsequent political change.[3] After the collapse of the Chuan government, the 1995-1996 government of Banharn Silpa-archa established a Political Reform Committee which amended the Constitution again in 22 October 1996. Efforts to adopt a new constitution gained increasing public support. In 2 November 1995, noted royalist and social critic Dr. Prawase Wasi declared to a crowded Bangkok ballroom that Thailand urgently needed a new constitution, to help avert the potential calamity of political violence that might follow the death of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. None of the media outlets in the room dared report this highly sensitive speech.[4]

The 1996 amendment called for the creation of an entirely new constitution by a special committee outside the National Assembly. The Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) was formed with 99 members: seventy-six of them directly elected from each of the provinces and 23 qualified persons short-listed by the Parliament from academia and other sources.[5] Anand Panyarachun, Premier in 1991 under the military regime, was selected as a member of the CDA and appointed Chairman of the Drafting Committee. Political scientists and jurists Chai-Anan Samudavanija, Amorn Chantarasomboon, Uthai Pimchaichon, and Borwornsak Uwanno were key influencers of the draft. A process of public consultation took place on a nation-wide basis. Some clauses, particularly the requirement that all MP's hold bachelor degrees, the party list system, the Constitutional Court, and decentralisation provoked strong criticism, particularly from smaller parties.[5] The Asian Economic Crisis of 1997 increased public awareness about the need for reform, and has been cited as an impetus for the constitution's successful approval.[1] The draft was approved by the National Assembly with 518 votes for, 16 against, and 17 abstentions.[5] A referendum, called for if the draft was rejected by the National Assembly, was not necessary.[6]

Overview of sections

The 1997 Constitution had 12 Chapters and a section of Transitory Provisions, containing a total of 317 Sections.[7]

Key features

Innovations

Compared to previous Thai constitutions, The 1997 Constitution had contained several innovations in key areas, including:

Succession

Like most preceding constitutions, the 1997 Constitution continued to rely on the 1924 Palace Law of Succession with regards to succession. The Palace Law was based on primogeniture, and the heir apparent was Prince Vajiralongkorn. Like most post-1974 constitutions, the Privy Council could appoint a princess as successor to the throne, but only in absence of an heir apparent. Amendment of the Palace Law of Succession was the sole prerogative of the reigning King.[14][15][16] The 1997 Constitution's successor, the 2006 Interim Constitution, was conspicuous in its failure to mention the matter of succession.[16]

Praise and criticism

The Constitution was calling a "revolution in Thai politics... A bold attempt at conferring greater power to the Thai people than had ever been granted before."[17] It was highly praised for the participative process involved in its drafting, its enshrinement of human rights, and its significant advances in political reform.[2] It was viewed as successful in fostering democratic development and increasing political stability.[18] Its measures to politically empower and protect citizens were also praised.[19] The new constitution was cited for its role in bringing down the Ministers of Public Health and Agriculture during corruption scandals in the government of Chuan Leekpai. There was also praise for the ease with which the constitution could be amended. Public faith in democracy in general and constitutional agencies like the Constitutional Court and the National Counter Corruption Commission is very high.[20] However, critics complained that the government had sought to politicize the process of appointments to independent agencies.[21]

The January 2001 House elections, the first House elections contested under the 1997 Constitution, were called the most open, corruption-free election in Thai history.[20] Political parties were effectively strengthened, and the effective number of parties in the legislature fell dramatically from an average of 6.2 before 1997 to 3.1 in 2001.[22] While the number of parties decreased, remaining parties developed clearer and more distinguishable platforms. The Constitution also weakened the legislative influence of civil servants and local power-brokers and businessmen, while strengthening political parties and professional politicians.[9]

Most criticism was based on the perspective that the Constitution was too effective in some of its reforms. One of the members of the Drafting Committee, Amorn Chantarasomboon, claimed that an overly strong and stable government brought on a "tyranny of the majority" and a "parliamentary dictatorship."[23] Independent agencies like the National Human Rights Commission and the National Counter Corruption Commission were also criticized as weak and vulnerable to government and court challenges.[19] Following House elections in April 2006, the Election Commissioners were jailed and the election results overturned by the Constitutional Court.

The constitution was also criticized for the lack of clarity with which it defines the King's role in politics (see Royal powers and 2006 demand for royal intervention). The Senate's role in scrutinizing Constitutional Court appointments came under much criticism (see Appointment of the first Constitutional Court). The Senate was criticized for its allegedly partisan behavior, with both pro- and anti- government factions being elected in the Senate elections of 2006.[21][24] Restrictions on Senate candidates from campaigning and political party membership led one commentator to call it a "motley collection of B-list celebrities and D-list hangers-on."[8] In House elections in April 2006, a constitutional crisis almost occurred when it appeared that the Parliament would not be able to convene within the constitutional time limit (see April 2006 House election results).

Thammasat University law lecturer Kittisak Prokati, a drafter of the post-2006 coup constitution, claimed that "the weakness of the 1997 constitution was that it was a charter without any constitutional or theoretical foundation."[25]

Although constitutional articles (specifically, article 80) committing the state the promoting equal rights between men and women, there was little progress in implementing specific laws to promote equality. In practice only around 10% of MPs and senators are female, and less than 6% of ministers.[26] Only 8.9% of district officers and 2.6% of provincial governors are women.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c Kittipong Kittayarak, The Thai Constitution of 1997 and its Implication on Criminal Justice Reform
  2. ^ a b c d Thanet Aphornsuvan, The Search for Order: Constitutions and Human Rights in Thai Political History, 2001 Symposium: Constitutions and Human Rights in a Global Age: An Asia Pacific perspective
  3. ^ Committee of Democracy Development, "The Propositions and Conceptual Framework of Thai Political Reform", 1995, Thai Research Fund
  4. ^ Duncan McCargo, "A Hollow Crown", New Left Review 43 (January-February 2007)
  5. ^ a b c d e Borwornsak Uwanno and Wayne D. Burns, The Thai Constitution of 1997 Sources and Process, part 2
  6. ^ Duncan McCargo, The 19 September 2006 coup – preliminary thoughts on the implications for the future direction of Thai politics, 12 October 2006
  7. ^ Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, enacted 1997, official translation by the Office of the Council of State
  8. ^ a b Alec Bamford and Chanida Chanyapate, Thailand: Democracy, Elections, and Legitimacy, 5 May 2006
  9. ^ a b Aurel Croissant and Daniel J. Pojar, Jr., Quo Vadis Thailand? Thai Politics after the 2005 Parliamentary Election, Strategic Insights, Volume IV, Issue 6 (June 2005)
  10. ^ Borwornsak Uwanno and Wayne D. Burns, The Thai Constitution of 1997 Sources and Process, part 1
  11. ^ a b Bienvenue au Sénat, Sénats du Monde, Thailand Senate
  12. ^ Prudisan Jumbala, "Thailand: Constitutional Reform Amidst Economic Crisis", Southeast Asian Affairs, Singapore, 1998, page 269
  13. ^ The Nation, Law expert warns of recurring cycle of coups, charter rewrites, 29 September 2006
  14. ^ Aryan, Gothan (September 15-16, 2004), Thai Monarchy, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Retrieved on 05 July 2006, presented in Kathmandu, Nepal
  15. ^ Paul M. Handley, "The King Never Smiles" Yale University Press: 2006, ISBN 0-300-10682-3
  16. ^ a b Paul Handley, What the Thai coup was really about, 6 November 2006
  17. ^ Paul Chambers, Good governance, political stability, and constitutionalism in Thailand 2002: The state of democratic consolidation five years after the implementation of the 1997 constitution, King Prajadhipok’s Institute, 10 August 2002
  18. ^ Thawilwadee Bureekul and Stithorn Thananithichot, The Thai Constitution of 1997: Evidence of Democratization
  19. ^ a b Niyom Rathamarit, The 1997 Constitution: the path of reform
  20. ^ a b Robert B. Albritton and Thawilwadee Bureekul, Developing Democracy under a New Constitution in Thailand, National Taiwan University and Academia Sinica Asian Barometer Project Office Working Paper Series No. 28, 2004
  21. ^ a b Duncan McCargo, Countries at the Crossroads 2006, Country Report - Thailand, Freedom House
  22. ^ Allen Hicken, Thailand: Combating Corruption through Electoral Reform
  23. ^ The Nation, "Thai Talk: Third party – not such a wild idea, 15 April 2004
  24. ^ Xinhua, New Senate election casts shadow on political prospect in Thailand
  25. ^ The Nation, 'Thaksin's ghost haunts drafters', 12 March 2007
  26. ^ King Prajadhipok's Institute, "Monitoring the Pulse of the Nation: Indicators of Good Governance and Development in Thailand", 2003

Further reading