From the very first days, they proclaimed that the new charter would be “edible”, in the sense that it will actually work and be substantive, especially in favour of the “people”, rather than just being completed for the sake of tradition.

That being the case, the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) introduced a new approach to the art of charter framing. Unlike its predecessors, which specifically defined the “rights and liberties of Thai people”, the CDC opted for a broad definition, with waivers of some rights addressed by particular laws.

The drafters have explained under the draft that people could actually have even more extensive rights and freedoms. Only some liberties will be restricted by law – everything else will be enjoyed by the people.

In regards to the draft being “edible”, the drafters said it means that all rights reserved for Thai people would be transformed into the state duties. It means the government must do its job to make sure that people get what they have the right to.

However, since the draft was released on Friday, critics have been pointing out that the new charter may have left reduced room for people’s participation in politics. There are apparently inadequate protections or even reductions of people’s rights and freedoms, and the issues of decentralisation and people’s participation in politics are only partially addressed.

Critics even claim that citizen and community rights and freedoms in this new charter amount to only half of those offered in the constitution of 2007.

The 17 Northern Provinces’ People and Communities Network issued a statement yesterday calling for a major revision of the draft charter, saying it failed to respond to their calls for increasing public participation in politics.

They said that even though the charter addresses people’s rights and freedoms in a broad manner, it has also left open a major loophole allowing potentially negligent implementation because it is not concrete enough to put into practice.

They called on the drafters to specify people’s basic rights and freedoms so that people’s participation in politics is fundamentally secure.

The network also claims that the draft fails to specifically address decentralisation, another crucial element to support people’s role in politics in addition to the conventional political structures and elections.

Pairoj Polpetch, a former member of the Law Reform Commission, said the constitution should not be dictated only by the powers-that-be at the latest seminar of the People’s Council for Reform, which is developing charter proposals to submit to the CDC.

Rather, Pairoj said, the people should also take part in directing the new constitution’s content.

“Community rights” should be included in the new charter, he contended, meaning that communities should have the right to determine economic development, conservation, restoration of traditions, and other plans and public policies.

Communities and people should also have a role in managing natural resources and working closely with the government to conserve and maintain those resources, Pairoj said. Any action regarding the use of such resources should not go ahead without public hearings.

Other rights relevant to people’s lives such as justice and social security, the right to participate in the formal political structures including at the decision-making level, and, more importantly, decentralisation must all be addressed by the draft, Pairoj said.

Last but not least, he added, people should have a hand in writing the draft because it would be a universal law for everyone.

Satitorn Tananitichote, a scholar from the King Prachatipok Institute, said public participation was very important and should be included in the new constitution.

Under a formal political structure that Satitorn recommends, political parties would adopt a primary voting system that allowed people to choose any candidate or party member in the early stages of the election process.

Additionally, in a checks-and-balances system, he added, people would have a greater role, for example by being allowed to appeal a Constitutional Court verdict. In this way, people would be more connected to the political system, he said.

Suriyasai Katasila, director of Rangsit University’s Thailand Reform Institute, said the charter drafters had put effort into stamping out the problem that they view as most critical – corruption.

However, what has been apparently brushed aside is civil society-based politics and public participation, values that were previously given importance by the former, now-defunct constitutional drafting committee.

In its draft that was rejected, the committee addressed those values as key components of a political structure under the term “citizenship”.

Besides, Suriyasai said, there are no tangible mechanisms to address reform and reconciliation. In the absence of such mechanisms, he said he had no idea how the country could move forward amid the deep divisions still remaining.

Pattara Kampitak, a former journalist and member of the CDC, said perceptions that the rights and freedoms of individuals and communities were limited might be inaccurate.

“Possibly it might be because the approach in writing is different from that of the previous constitution. So, people misunderstood it,” he said.

The drafters have addressed rights and freedoms in various articles, Pattara said, adding that rights had been enshrined as state commitments that will yield tangible results.