“If constitutions could really combat corruption, Thailand would be free of that by now,” law professor Piyabutr Saengkanokkul said. “Every time a new constitution is written, they always say it would serve that function. But has it worked?”

The Thammasat University’s lecturer added that the slogan was a mere propaganda sold to the middle class.

“When they say it would curb graft, who would not like it? [It would be as if you are an immoral person when you disagree],” Piyabutr said.

He explained that the real function of constitutions was to arrange the power relations of political institutions and to guarantee people’s freedom and rights.

“The hope in combating graft lies in the political culture of democracy,” the law professor noted.

“However, when under a dictatorship, we cannot see any corruption case because there is no check mechanism, unlike democratic regimes,” he said.

“When we have democracy, the check mechanism works. We have freedom of expression to question or to express opinions. That is how corruption cases are discovered,” Piyabutr said.

He said mechanisms to curb graft in the latest charter draft put more weight on the elected body, and that was not balanced.

“There are mechanisms to check the elected but not the courts, the army, the civil servants…. As if corruption only occurs among the elected,” he said.

He concluded that the “graft-curbing constitution” was merely a propaganda that would not work in reality.

Aside from that, the lecturer noted that the current regime would still retain power after the new constitution is adopted, if it passes the planned referendum in August.

Piyabutr said that in the 21st century, there is hardly any place for dictatorship. While many people might not feel that two years [since the coup was staged in 2014] was a long time, it was not a short time “considering we are in the 21st century”, he said.

But, as international relations was an important part of state-craft, dictators usually needed to find ways to transform themselves and blend in as democratic regimes.

The law professor said such attempts could be seen in the current charter draft as well. Article 265, for instance, allowed the power of the coup-maker under Article 44 of the 2014 interim charter to persist, if the new charter passes the referendum and is adopted.

“And Article 44 allows the junta to do almost anything. When the charter says that the regime will be around only until the next Cabinet is set up, there is no guarantee that the junta will not use Article 44 to defer the election or something to delay the establishment of the new cabinet,” Piyabutr said.