With the ban on political gatherings still in effect, the fate of political campaigns ahead of the public referendum on the charter draft remains uncertain despite the Election Commission’s measures meant to facilitate such activities.

So, several political figures and factions are looking for space both on social media and in public briefings to outline their stances. They hope these platforms will be more effective in drumming up support than campaigning in the field – at least for now.

Chaturon Chaisang, a key figure in Pheu Thai Party, has focused on Facebook to express his views on the charter draft.

His cover photos are regularly changed to show either highly charged or thought-provoking phrases, suggesting “vote no”. One recent photo read, “Shoot down the charter draft”, while the latest one said, “When to go for an election is not as critical as the regime who is behind the election”.

Last Wednesday, Chaturon openly questioned the possibility of having a public debate on the charter draft, saying, “it won’t be that easy this time” and posting clips of 2007 charter debates he participated in.

He also slammed the military, accusing them of trying to suppress freedom of expression, even on social media. He said the referendum would be pointless with just one-sided information provided.

Chaturon said the charter draft was like a blank cheque for those in power, claiming they could add anything they wish later.

“This is much more critical than previous charters as several things in the draft have been left vague or blank, and will be added after the referendum,” Chaturon posted. “Those who sign this cheque [vote yes in the referendum] will be shocked about what is added later, and will find it difficult to make changes as there is hardly any room for amendment and practically no public participation is encouraged.”

Weng Tojirakarn, a key member of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), said campaigning on social media was as good as going out in the field.

Through social-networking sites, messages could be conveyed efficiently, he said, adding that each red-shirt leader has hundreds of thousands of followers, especially on Facebook.

Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, for instance, has approximately 5 million fans on the social-networking site, Weng claimed, adding that this was why it was no longer necessary to go into the field.

“We no longer have to campaign, because whatever Yingluck posts on her fanpage already reaches millions of people out there,” he said.

Interestingly, they believe that though they may not “go out on the field with campaign banners, bands and bullhorns”, they are confident that their supporters will vote in the direction they have been pushing for.

“After reflecting on facts and accurate information, I strongly believe that fellow eligible voters will definitely vote down the draft charter,” he said. However, he pointed out that the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) was reaching out to people using troops of Army students to help spread the good points of the charter.

Democrat Party’s deputy leader Nipit Intrasombat, meanwhile, said his party would rely on press conferences and Facebook posts to publicise its views on the draft charter. He added that he was confident that the party’s stance would reach its supporters.

PDRF ‘neutral on charter’

When asked whether he thought Democrat supporters would vote in line with the party’s sentiments, Nipit said: “I believe so.”

He explained the voters had the right to cast their vote as they please, and all the Democrat Party could do is voice its stance, especially on crucial subjects such as the constitution.

Nipit insisted that his party would not arrange any political campaigns to influence voters, partly due to the NCPO’s ban on gatherings.

Meanwhile, the People’s Democratic Reform Foundation (PDRF), previously the People’s Democratic Reform Committee that fuelled the 2014 coup, has chosen to stay neutral on the issue.

PDRF spokesman Akanat Promphan said the foundation would rather see the final version of the charter before it decides to take a position. He said a crucial factor that could drive its decision is to deal with reforms, adding that the foundation was monitoring its development and has not yet made any public moves regarding the draft. Though personally, he said, he did not consider the draft undemocratic or find anything wrong with it.

Despite differing views on the charter draft, the one point everybody seems to agree upon is “equal rights”.

Pongthep Thepkanchana, another key Pheu Thai figure, said he wouldn’t boast that the referendum result will be in line with his party’s preference, but the most important thing would be that “voters reserve the right to receive well-rounded, and not one-sided, information on the subject”.

“The constitution is the supreme law that is imposed on every single person in the country. Therefore, everybody must have the chance to speak their minds about it,” Pongthep said. “If only one side can speak or run its propaganda, then it is not a referendum.”