“The problem with democracy in Thailand in the past 10 years lies in how the winning majority abuse and distort power … The powers that be are now trying to resolve it by degrading instead of strengthening it [democracy],” said Kasian Tejapira, a political science professor at Thammasat University.

He spoke at a public seminar titled “Constitution and Referendum That Can Be Chosen” at Thammasat University’s Tha Prachan Campus yesterday.

Kasian noted that during the Shinawatra governments, abuse of power was seen when the Yingluckgovernment attempted to pass the amnesty bill and the Thaksin government chose violence to wage the war on drugs.

He said the power struggle in the country over the past decade reflected the elites’ attempt to transit the country to non-democracy.

“But they want to preserve elections … So, what we are facing is the regime with elections but without democracy,” the professor said.

He explained that it was an attempt to give power, which theoretically belonged to the winning majority, to the minority. The means might vary, but a constant theme has emerged.

Under the shot-down constitution draft by Borwornsak Uwanno’s panel, the power given to the winning majority was transferred to some moral body or the so-called “good people”, the academic said.

For the current charter draft by Meechai Ruchuphan, such power would go to a juridical body and the Army, Kasian said, adding that those winning an election would have no power despite people voting for them.

“This trend is also reflected in Meechai’s recent remark that democracy is not about empowering the people, but about the best interests of the people,” he said.

Baramee Chairat, a coordinator of Thailand’s Assembly of the Poor, said Thai constitutions were generally not friendly towards the underprivileged. Only the 1997 Constitution allowed people to take part in the process of writing it and was the only charter called “the people’s constitution”.

He slammed the current charter for wanting to put limitations on people’s rights as it stipulated that people were free to enjoy rights and freedoms as long as doing so did not affect the country’s security.

“Well, this charter by Meechai is suggesting that we can exercise rights when it doesn’t rock the state. In the 1997 charter, to the contrary, it said that the state can exercise its rights when it doesn’t rock the people,” Baramee said.

Detrat Sukkamnerd, an economic professor from Kasetsart University, said the rights or welfare given to the people in the charter draft was like charity.

He pointed out that access to education was a fundamental right that everyone had equally. However, in the constitution draft it states it is the state’s duty to provide education to people for only 12 years, he said.

“When people said that it should be 15 years, they [the government] said they could give that [the extra three years] because the state had enough budget. It is almost like we have to feel grateful for such charity when education is a right,” he said.