1997 Constitution of Thailand


The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Buddhist Era 2540 was a constitution of Thailand enacted on 11 October 1997 to replace the 1991 Constitution, and was widely hailed as a landmark in Thai democratic constitutional reform. The Constitution was repealed by the Council for Democratic Reform on 19 September 2006 following a successful military coup, and was replaced by the 2006 Constitution on 1 October 2006.
The 1997 Constitution was the first constitution to be drafted by a popularly elected Constitutional Drafting Assembly, hence was popularly called the "People's Constitution". The 1997 Constitution created a bicameral legislature. For the first time in Thai history, both houses were directly elected. Many human rights are explicitly acknowledged in the text, and measures were established to increase the stability of elected governments.

Constitution drafting process

The "Black May" public uprising against a military-dominated government that gained power due to the 1991 Constitution provoked public calls for a more accountable system of government. In June 1994, the Committee of Democracy Development of the House of Representatives was established during the government of Chuan Leekpai. Chuan was forced to establish the Committee following a hunger strike by prominent activist Chalard Vorachat. The Committee, headed by academic Prawase Wasi, amended the 1991 Constitution but was unable to push through further reform. However, it did identify many basic frameworks which would become influential for subsequent political change. After the collapse of the Chuan government, the 1995-1996 government of Banharn Silpa-archa established a Political Reform Committee which amended the Constitution again on 22 October 1996. Efforts to adopt a new constitution gained increasing public support. On 2 November 1995, noted royalist and social critic Dr. Prawase Wasi declared to a crowded Bangkok ballroom that Thailand urgently needed a new constitution, to help avert the potential calamity of political violence that might follow the death of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. None of the media outlets in the room dared report this highly sensitive speech.
The 1996 amendment called for the creation of an entirely new constitution by a special committee outside the National Assembly. The Constitution Drafting Assembly was formed with 99 members: seventy-six of them directly elected from each of the provinces and 23 qualified persons short-listed by the Parliament from academia and other sources. Anand Panyarachun, Premier in 1991 under the military regime, was selected as a member of the CDA and appointed Chairman of the Drafting Committee. Political scientists and jurists Chai-Anan Samudavanija, Amorn Chantarasomboon, Uthai Pimchaichon, and Borwornsak Uwanno were key influencers of the draft. A process of public consultation took place on a nationwide basis. Some clauses, particularly the requirement that all MP's hold bachelor's degrees, the party list system, the Constitutional Court, and decentralisation provoked strong criticism, particularly from smaller parties. The Asian Economic Crisis of 1997 increased public awareness about the need for reform, and has been cited as an impetus for the constitution's successful approval. The draft was approved by the National Assembly with 518 votes for, 16 against, and 17 abstentions. A referendum, called for if the draft was rejected by the National Assembly, was not necessary.

Overview of sections

The 1997 Constitution had 12 Chapters and a section of Transitory Provisions, containing a total of 317 Sections.

Innovations

Compared to previous Thai constitutions, The 1997 Constitution had contained several innovations in key areas, including:
Like most preceding constitutions, the 1997 Constitution continued to rely on the 1924 Palace Law of Succession with regards to succession. The Palace Law was based on primogeniture, and the heir apparent was Prince Vajiralongkorn. As with most post-1974 constitutions, the Privy Council could appoint a princess as successor to the throne, but only in the absence of an heir apparent. Amendment of the Palace Law of Succession was the sole prerogative of the reigning King. The 1997 Constitution's successor, the 2006 Interim Constitution, was conspicuous in its failure to mention the matter of succession.

Praise and criticism

The Constitution was calling a "revolution in Thai politics... A bold attempt at conferring greater power to the Thai people than had ever been granted before." It was highly praised for the participative process involved in its drafting, its enshrinement of human rights, and its significant advances in political reform. It was viewed as successful in fostering democratic development and increasing political stability. Its measures to politically empower and protect citizens were also praised. The new constitution was cited for its role in bringing down the Ministers of Public Health and Agriculture during corruption scandals in the government of Chuan Leekpai. There was also praise for the ease with which the constitution could be amended. Public faith in democracy in general, and in constitutional agencies like the Constitutional Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission, was very high. However, critics complained that the government had sought to politicize the process of appointments to independent agencies.
The January 2001 House elections, the first House elections contested under the 1997 Constitution, were called the most open, corruption-free elections in Thai history. Political parties were effectively strengthened, and the effective number of parties in the legislature fell dramatically from an average of 6.2 before 1997 to 3.1 in 2001. While the number of parties decreased, remaining parties developed clearer and more distinguishable platforms. The Constitution also weakened the legislative influence of civil servants and local power-brokers and businessmen, while strengthening political parties and professional politicians.
Most criticism was based on the view that the Constitution was too effective in some of its reforms. One of the members of the Drafting Committee, Amorn Chantarasomboon, claimed that an overly strong and stable government brought on a "tyranny of the majority" and a "parliamentary dictatorship." Independent agencies like the National Human Rights Commission and the National Anti-Corruption Commission were also criticized as weak and vulnerable to government and court challenges. Following House elections in April 2006, the Election Commissioners were jailed and the election results overturned by the Constitutional Court.
The constitution was also criticized for the lack of clarity with which it defines the King's role in politics. The Senate's role in scrutinizing Constitutional Court appointments came under much criticism. The Senate was criticized for its allegedly partisan behavior, with both pro- and anti- government factions being elected in the Senate elections of 2006. Restrictions on campaigning and political party membership for members of the Senate led one commentator to call it a "motley collection of B-list celebrities and D-list hangers-on." In House elections in April 2006, a constitutional crisis almost occurred when it appeared that the Parliament would not be able to convene within the constitutional time limit.
Thammasat University law lecturer Kittisak Prokati, a drafter of the post-2006 coup constitution, claimed that "the weakness of the 1997 constitution was that it was a charter without any constitutional or theoretical foundation."
Although constitutional articles committing the state the promoting equal rights between men and women, there was little progress in implementing specific laws to promote equality. In practice only around 10% of MPs and senators are female, and less than 6% of ministers. Only 8.9% of district officers and 2.6% of provincial governors are women.