PRIME MINISTER General Prayut Chan-o-cha yesterday affirmed the country needs a special mechanism to advance reforms during a five-year transitional period.

“It [mechanism] could be a new panel or Senate or whoever to control the direction,” he said, adding that the mechanism would help guide the next government.

The instruments to do this could come in the form of clauses included in a provision on the transition to make it easier to amend, Prayut suggested after a Cabinet meeting.

The premier stressed his intention to step down when the term of his government ends.

“How could I stay then? I don’t know, [they] have to consider this,” he said, when asked if his government would stay after an election scheduled in July next year.

The special mechanism Prayut mentioned is similar to the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Commission (NSRRC)- or “crisis panel” proposed in Borwornsak Uwanno’s rejected charter draft, political analysts said. The panel would be given special powers over the executive and legislative branches to intervene in a political crisis, in addition to its normal task of working on reform and reconciliation.

The committee members included the parliament president, the Senate speaker, the prime minister, the supreme commander, the army, navy, air force and national police chiefs, a former prime minister, a former parliament president and a former Supreme Court president.

Prayut was responding to a controversy last week over his Cabinet’s proposal to the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) on the charter draft – to add a special set of rules or an exception to the rule for a transition period after the next general election, without explaining how this would happen or how long it would be before the country returns to a full democracy. It said the mechanism would help prevent the kind of turmoil seen prior to the May 2014 coup.

The premier thinks it is necessary to have some “fritters” included in one of the charter draft’s sections to prevent the kind of political deadlocks the country saw prior to the 2014 coup, a government source quoted the premier as saying. “I believe the CDC will learn from the mistakes of the NSRRC provision in the previous, aborted draft,” the source said. “The mechanism shouldn’t stir concerns and fears among the public.”

A controversial point in the proposal also suggested that there should be “a certain level of MPs elected to create balance”. The government source told The Nation that the phrase implies that MPs and senators should come from different sources in a bid to prevent political influence in Parliament.

While MPs would come from an election, senators could be elected indirectly, the source said, as it could be assured that senators who came to office this way would be qualified via intensive screening of candidates. The source’s response coincides with a proposal by some members of the National Legislative Assembly and the National Reform Steering Assembly on the charter draft to have an appointed Senate in order to ensure the junta will have at least 200 senators supporting the junta after an election, according to a source close to the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).

The proposal stated that Parliament should consist of only constituency MPs and appointed senators and both Houses should be able to choose the premier, who could be a member of either House, the source said. However, an official told The Nation he had never heard of such a proposal. Academics called the idea “insane” and impossible to work without negative repercussions.

‘Problems not new to us’

Attasit Pankaew, a lecturer in political science at Thammasat University, said it was possible the NCPO feared there may be unrest after the election, so they proposed that the country have a transitional period during which they be allowed to retain some control. “But in my opinion, the country does not need the transition. It is not like democracy or these problems are new to us. I believe we can manage [without it],” he said.

He said the NCPO’s move showed they were not confident about the laws and regulations proposed. They may not be efficient in terms of the issues the country had to tackle, so they wanted to retain some control.

“The best solution would be that they write laws and regulations acceptable to all parties so the country can move on,” Attasit said, This was better than writing laws that upset people. Jade Donavanik, an adviser to the current CDC and a member of the previous charter-drafting panel, expressed disbelief when he first heard about the model. He said it was “too extreme and just impossible”.

Despite scepticism, Jade said: “They can write anything at all in the constitution, but they cannot force it into real practice. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work,” elaborating also that it was very difficult for such an extreme model to work – as many people were likely to oppose it, he said.

“Eventually, if things cannot go on, another revolution takes place,” he remarked.

Jade, thus, suggested that the best way to pursue “extraordinary rule” was via “extraordinary measures” that only apply when the country faces the same old vicious cycle such as Parliament failing to function or street protests. Yuttaporn Issarachai, another political scientist, said that by proposing such a model, the NCPO was not being well-rounded. “It might sound effective and efficient in terms of administration, but would not be in terms of democracy.” He said democracy was about the “means” – including people in the process – rather than the “end”, which may not always be the most desired result.

He feared such a model could itself cause political turmoil. The NCPO was looking at the matter from only its perspective and not from that of others. That’s why it did not occur to them their semi-democracy model was problematic.