ABHISIT VEJJAJIVA, head of the Democrats, the country’s oldest political party, admits that his declaration of an opposing stance to the charter may have an impact on his leadership, but insists that both he and the party will contest the next election if it passes the referendum.

“I feel pretty comfortable because our party, the Democrats, is a party that has a system in place to manage things,” he said. “Whatever the impact, I trust that it would not go beyond our party’s system to deal with it. There should be no problem,” he said.

His comments on Wednesday, 11 days before the referendum, will affect his position as party leader, as supporters will see it otherwise, but the party had a long democratic tradition of giving members the chance to participate in party issues, he said.

Abhisit’s rejection of the charter could be one of his most difficult decisions. Under his leadership, the party twice boycotted elections – on April 2, 2006 and February 2, 2014.

The former PM has had both praise and criticism over his latest stance.

Observers have said his “vote no” declaration could drive a wedge between him and Suthep Thaugsuban, former party secretary-general and now chairman of the People’s Democratic Reform Foundation.

Suthep, who led masses of supporters to oust Yingluck’s government and helped spur the junta to stage the coup in 2014, has thrown his full support behind the charter.

Despite leaving the party two years ago to lead the protest, Suthep still wields influence within the party.

However, Abhisit has Chuan Leekpai, the heavyweight ex-party leader, former prime minister and his mentor, on his side.

Democrat members and supporters have been confused on whether they should vote as Abhisit has suggested, or as Suthep has urged them.

The former prime minister said the charter did not respond to Thailand’s problems and challenges, whether sustainable development, which upholds the benefits of the majority based on guarantees of freedom and liberty fundamental to the health of democracy, corruption problems or the decade-long socio-political conflict and division.

His stance has prompted various views within the party, raising questions about his and the party’s future.

Abhisit, who turns 52 in two days, insists he had to think of the country first and not much about his or the party’s future at this point.

He recalled the time when he entered politics and was impressed by the party’s ideology of working for the people and pursuing a development path that responds to the majority’s needs, which became the critical reason for choosing that stance.

If the charter is accepted, he is ready to accept the majority’s decision.

He said he won’t withdraw from politics. “But I will prepare myself and the party to contest an election.”

This was because individuals were free to take a stand and party members and voters would respect that, he said.

His dislike of the charter was based on his pure feelings for the country and on its contents, not the procedures after, which are about an election and subsequent steps.

That’s the reason why, as a political party, the Democrats will join an election.

However, if the party ran in the election and won a majority of seats and set up the new government, it would face difficulty running the country because of what was inscribed in the charter.

What the Democrats would do is amend it, he said.

If the charter is turned down, he would insist on following the roadmap and the Interim Charter, but people might have to wait for Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s next moves.

Prayut, who is also the junta leader, should consider using the 2007 constitution as a template for a new charter, if there was a need to draft one, and he should invite all sectors of society to come up with solutions for problems concerning corruption and the country’s division and conflict, plus reform work.

That would be the best thing, and he trusted that Prayut was capable of leading the process.

Abhisit rejected the notion that he helped Prayut to step down from complications if the charter is voted down.

Prayut should lead the process, he said, because if the country starts anew from the very first question of who should lead the process, that would cause chaos and disagreement. Arguments may not be settled and the process would be dragged out, causing a waste of time.

“I didn’t think of it (the National Council for Peace and Order) at all when making the decision for my stance, that I should help it or so on,” he said.

“If I was an advantage snatcher, I would probably lie back and wait. But here I am, stepping out and making my stance clear, because what I care the most about now is the country’s future. I want to see it move forward and in peace and get the best it deserves. We must find ways toward true democracy, not turn back to the same old path we want to avoid.”

Meanwhile, red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan vowed yesterday that he would not run in the next election if the charter passes the referendum. He said the 10-year-long conflict had been caused by an ignorance of democracy.

Jatuporn and his camp, plus Pheu Thai Party members have made it clear from the start that they will vote ‘no’ in the referendum. He said at present no party dared to announce that they would vote in favour of the charter, as they feared they might be branded supporters of a dictatorship.