Reform before an election is not the way to go, as an election must be part of the plan itself, says Abhisit Vejjajiva. The support of all stakeholders is also needed to make it work. In an interview with the BANGKOK POST, the Democrat Party leader, also known as Mark, says his immediate aim is to head off a looming clash on the streets.
Abhisit: Election a component of reform
Do you see the reform you propose coming after or before an election?
The fundamental issue facing the country right now is the need for reform. It is what everyone is calling for and masses want to see changes in the country. I’ve stated time and again that for reform to happen, everyone must be in on it. I don’t believe reform can materialise with any one of the stakeholders refusing to participate. If anyone thinks a reform can be imposed, it won’t be long before it is stifled.
I feel we need to reinforce the strength of a reform drive, which under the constitution can be done via an election. I’ve met justice permanent secretary Kittipong Kittayarak and the Reform Now Network (RNN) and we agree national reform is needed and that people should not be restricted by choosing between reform or election. We must make election part of the reform whenever that election is held.
Should we reform before or after a general election then?
There is a crisis of confidence in political parties. Those supporting a reform before election don’t think reform is attainable unless it is done first. The other group questions how long the reform will drag on. Even if we have no idea about what to do, there is no telling how long reform will take. So, reform before election is not the answer. Rather, an election must be made a component of reform. The political stakeholders must come to an agreement that the reform that follows a general election has to be guaranteed not to fail, and that no party will backtrack on it.
We discussed the matter quite extensively with the RNN and we think we have a model or method to prevent backtracking. But we cannot elaborate at this point in time.
Is a national unity government or an appointed government a way out?
We can’t say at the moment. There can be many paths to a solution while the finer details can be tweaked. I won’t say if a national government is the solution. We want to keep working until the mission is accomplished. If I give too much away, I’ll be criticised so much I won’t get to finish my task.
This reform project I’m initiating has nothing to do with politics. I take comfort in the thought I’ve laid down the first jigsaw piece. Today, I’m scheduled to meet the supreme commander. He’s the jigsaw piece on aspects of security. I’ll will then assess whether what we propose as a solution is viable.
We want security authorities to be our ally in the quest for answers. Then, I’ll talk to the Election Commission (EC) and figure out what I should do next after the two pieces of the puzzle are in place.
The most difficult challenge is the political figures. I’ll speak to the government and Suthep Thaugsuban [the People’s Democratic Reform Committee leader]. If we can convince them, the jigsaw will be complete.
If not, we may not succeed at all. We have little time left. Next month, the Constitution Court will decide [on the Thawil Pliensri transfer case against the caretaker premier] and the National Anti-Corruption Commission is set to rule whether to indict and seek impeachment against the premier over the rice-pledging scheme.
Major street rallies are being planned and a general election date being set.
Right now, time is not on our side in designing the reform process. We have to act fast to avert any confrontation. It is an urgent matter. People are getting shot and we lose lives almost every day [in political violence]. People bemoan the economic crunch and ask if there will be bloodshed. The rice farmers are also waiting for their money. People want the conflict to end. If we do nothing, we’ll be stuck here. That’s why I just can’t sit and watch.
Would you have a national government within a constitutional framework?
Yes, if it functions in constitutional and democratic scopes. But I don’t want to use the word national government because it is interpretative. Some think it’s a government full of good people. Others envisage a government represented by all political parties. But whatever such a government turns out to be, it cannot deny the mission of reform.
Do you reckon your proposed solution will tick all the boxes?
I believe there is an answer which will give people confidence in reform with some kind of guarantee that serves better than a written agreement to commit stakeholders to the cause.
There is also the issue of what form the transitional government will take in the light of a scenario where the entire cabinet or only the prime minister is purged as a result of the court’s ruling on the Thawil transfer case. What I propose will have an answer.
We can’t wait for the court to rule and have arguments over it. If we don’t prepare a solution, the country can’t move forward. If we wait for the court ruling, or for the EC to fix an election date, my fear is we will be at each other’s throats again. It would be tremendous if we could agree and avert a dire situation.
Is there any possibility of a political vacuum?
If we allow the vacuum, there will be questions over the invocation of sections 3 and 7 in the charter. No one can tell how these two sections can be applied. The phrase ‘application according to convention’ in Section 7 is open to debate. Who has the final say in defining the convention?
To what extent do you think the government and the People’s Democratic Reform Committee will agree to your idea?
We believe they won’t reject it out of hand but they won’t be satisfied with everything we present to them. We can’t please everyone.
I don’t think what the government is trying to do — fixing an election date — is the answer. Even if we hold an election, the country won’t be peaceful. Or will a military coup help the country? And what of the people’s revolution? Will stability return? Look at Egypt, Ukraine and Syria.