The “best” charters exist on paper only, because they guarantee nothing. In the real world, there are no such things as Constitutions that can make countries good or change them overnight.
Only good people can make a country good. Bad people can write the best charters and then go on to ruin their nations. Bad countries can have the Constitutions that everyone wants to copy, but, at the end of the day, they are just rules that bad citizens always try to exploit or find loopholes in and good citizens do not need.
Constitution is the highest law of the land. Should we have it? Yes. Do we really need it? God forbid, no.
We “should” have it as a reminder of who we are and what we want. We “should” have it as a deterrent. We “should” have it to lay down basic ground rules to prevent a descent into something horrible.
But we should never count on it.
America has an inspiring Constitution but a political activist has been shot to death this week, apparently for political reasons, and, ever since its charter was born, gunmen have targeted the country’s presidents or presidential candidates.
Constitutional enthusiasts around the world worship the French Constitution, but what about the current large-scale, politically-driven rioting?
Nepal possesses a Constitution that cherishes democracy, but the country has plunged into a fiery anarchy just a few days ago. Corruption was blamed, and so were constitutionalised politicians’ refusal to accept others’ freedom of expressions.
Thailand is at that juncture again where its people have to decide what rules are the best. Referenda may take place to determine if or how or how much the country’s supreme law should be changed.
It’s a tiring soul-searching circle. The country, for example, has been experimenting with an appointed Senate, then an elected Senate, as well as a unicameral legislature. Every single try has its pros and cons, and nothing lasts forever.
During peace times, “reformers” question the existence of a big military needing a massive budget. A serious border problem has silenced such criticism. What should we add to the Constitution now? That politicians who might have murky local and foreign interest have the absolute right to control military spending?
China, whose Constitution critics say is often interpreted as supporting an authoritarian status quo, has made obvious progresses underlined by its recent military parade.
Which leaders needed bullet-proof glasses while supervising, from metres away, parades of the armed forces they are supposed to command, Americans or Chinese? Who take pride in and “revere” their charters, talking about things being “constitutional” or “unconstitutional” on a daily basis?
Love it or hate it, everyone acknowledges China’s developments, but nobody is attributing them to its Constitution, and probably rightly so.
Keeping reforming the rules cuts both ways. On the one hand, it allows adaptions to changing situations. On the other hand, it makes people rely on rules instead of their own moral consciences.
We may be giving “constitutional reform” too much credit. Check out what’s happening in Thailand. The People’s Party has decided to bite the bullet by supporting Anutin Charnvirakul as the new prime minister. Behind the most unthinkable political act testing every ideology was apparently the desire to have a “better” Constitution.
Backing him is not wrong, however, but what is are the conditions.
Anutin has to support a constitutional review, to sum the People’s Party’s conditions up. The agreement said nothing about what Thailand really needed, like governmental honesty or a genuine and serious crackdown on corruption. Simply put, the country’s biggest party is putting all eggs in the charter reform basket.
Will the rampant Thai corruption go away if a revised Constitution, say, gives more power to elected representatives and reduces the authority of the appointed “independent” agencies? No, of course not. Things will be the same if we are lucky, and worse if we are not.
Reform the people, and not the rules that can be bent, or disrespected, or blatantly abused. Also, embedded in basically every charter are ideological prejudices that could look solid today but become slippery or questioned in the long run.
As long as gratitude or quid pro quo features in every single Cabinet lineup or rapists or sexual harassers sit in legislative chamber(s), there is no point in having an “excellent” charter. These are the most obvious obstacles to a good and effective political system, so, if we can’t eradicate them, forget about everything else.
Best charters do not exist in reality. Thailand’s “People’s charter”, enacted in 1997 after being created by a special drafting assembly, was lauded all over the world but look what happens now. It just made people looking for loopholes work harder.
But, without rules, how can we keep bad people in check? This argument makes the charter necessary. It’s a strong argument, but that does not mean it cannot be countered.
Rules suppress but do not completely get rid of bad impulses, which most of the time will find the way. Furthermore, rules do not properly promote good morals. On the contrary, they often encourage sidestepping, making people resort to all kinds of malicious tactics to avoid them.
Good morality has to start from within. A written Constitution is very important, but it’s not vital.
By Tulsathit Taptim
