1997 Constitution of Thailand - Praise and Criticism

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." It was highly praised for the participative process involved in its drafting, its enshrinement of human rights, and its significant advances in political reform. It was viewed as successful in fostering democratic development and increasing political stability. Its measures to politically empower and protect citizens were also praised. 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. However, critics complained that the government had sought to politicize the process of appointments to independent agencies.

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. 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. 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.

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." 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. 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. 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." 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."

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. Only 8.9% of district officers and 2.6% of provincial governors are women.