Thailand’s New Constitution
READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED: D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.
MEANINGS are given in BOLD and ITALIC
The struggle to define the terms of Thailand’s democracy has been viscerally (in a visceral manner ; guts) fought over the past decade and a half, and it is far from clear whether the country’s popular approval of a new Constitution will seal it. The military-backed government of Prayuth Chan-ocha says the vote, in a referendum (a political popular vote on a proposed law) , supporting the military-backed Constitution sets the stage for an election in end-2017. But the contents of the Constitution as well as the circumstances (that which attends, or relates to, or in some way affects) of the referendum do not encourage the hope that Thailand’s next government will be decided by popular mandate (an official or authoritative command) .
The country has been ruled by its traditionally powerful generals since 2014, when Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra was ousted (to expel ; to remove) from office, ending years of jostling (a push) between political parties owing allegiance (loyalty to some cause, nation) to her brother Thaksin Shinawatra, a business tycoon (a wealthy and powerful business person)now in exile, and forces grouped around the royal palace. The Shinawatras have, since 2001, won a majority in every election, given their devoted voter base in the north and among poorer Thais across the country. The so-called Bangkok establishment, made up of the middle and upper classes that coalesced (to join into the single mass or whole) around the palace-judiciary-military-bureaucracy, has held all along that the Shinawatras won a mandate for their allegedly corrupt regime (mode of rule or management) with populist giveaways, such as easy credit and healthcare benefits to the rural masses.
The Bangkok elites say Thailand needs a guiding hand to see that its elected legislature sticks to clean, visionary (having vision) governance. The new Constitution promises just that: a military-appointed senate (two separate legislative chambers) that will virtually have the power to appoint a Prime Minister of its choice and hold the government to a 20-year development programme.The overriding (to ride across or beyond something) intent of the Constitution seems to be to prevent power from slipping into the hands of the Shinawatras and their proxies (an agent ; to act for another person) each time an election is held. The referendum was held in curious (difficult to satisfy ) circumstances with the so-called Referendum Act practically disallowing any debate (an argument or discussion) on the text.
The generals may appear confident of pulling off a controlled democracy, but they are working along an anxious (greatly concerned or respecting something future or unknown) timeline and may have felt compelled to overplay their hand. Thailand’s king, the long-serving Bhumibol Adulyadej, has been ailing (sick ; unwell) , and their concern is that his successor may not be the force he has been in giving the military and the Bangkok elites (of high birth or social position ; most select of a group) a dominant hand. They would like to have a new system in place to take the fight away from the Red Shirts, supporters of the Shinawatras, who have shown their ability to determine the outcome of every popular election since 2001. Going by past standoffs (a device which maintains a fixed distance between two objects) involving the Red Shirts, especially the Bangkok protests of 2010, it may be too soon to count on the referendum to deliver a truce (a formal agreement to end fighting).
##############
