In this seminar, Dr Prajak Kongkirati presented a detailed analysis of the 7 August referendum outcome for the vote on the draft for Thailand’s 20th constitution. He explained the political impact of this outcome, as well as the likely political direction that post-referendum Thailand will take. – Click on to learn more about the seminar.
ISEAS Senior Fellow and Co-Coordinator of Thailand Studies Programme, Dr Terence Chong, introducing Dr Prajak Kongkirati, ISEAS Visiting Fellow to the audience at the start of the seminar (Source: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute)
Monday, 15 August 2016 – On 7 August 2016 Thais voted in favour of the draft of their country’s 20th constitution. In this seminar, Dr Prajak Kongkirati, Visiting Fellow at ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, offered a detailed analysis of the referendum results and explained its impact on Thailand’s politics.
Dr Prajak argued that in spite of the conclusive referendum results, the future for Thai politics still remains uncertain, and that observers are unlikely to be optimistic about the country’s political outlook.
Noting that this was the second constitutional referendum held in Thai history (the first being in 2007), Dr Prajak observed that the general climate of the referendum was repressive, especially because all campaigning against the draft constitution was banned. Although the referendum was perceived to be unfree and unfair, it was peaceful and did not give rise to violence.
Dr Prajak giving an overview of the political leaders and organisations who were in favour and against the constitution (Source: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute)
Dr Prajak also noted that the voting process was confusing for voters. The ballot paper, for example, contained two questions instead of one. This was not clearly communicated to voters beforehand. Dr Prajak argued that this had significant implications on the results.
After providing a brief overview of the political leaders and organisations who were in favour and against the constitution, Dr Prajak explained how a split in opinions among those opposed to the draft constitution had most likely resulted in low voter turnout, especially in the Northeast regions.
Dr Prajak also argued that the referendum results contribute to a pattern that can be traced back to the 2007 constitutional referendum. This 2016 referendum must be understood as part of an old pattern, rather than a starting point in Thai politics. For instance, voter turnout and the proportion of yes/no votes were similar for both referendums.
Dr Prajak highlighting at least four reasons that moved the ‘yes’ voters in support of the referendum (Source: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute)
Dr Prajak identified at least four reasons that motivated ‘yes’ voters for the referendum, namely, support for the Prayuth government, distrust of elected politicians, a desire to restore an electoral system and civilian administration, and the perception that this constitution would lead to a more predictable political climate which would, in turn, provide stability.
‘No’ votes had more regional specificity to their meanings. Voters in the Upper North and Northeast regions may have been motivated by the desire to reject the undemocratic charter and military rule. In the Deep South, there is deep resentment towards the junta (or the Thai state generally). There was also a rejection of the constitution’s emphasis on the protection of Theravada Buddhism. This is especially significant because this is the first time that a particular branch of Buddhism is named in the constitution.
Interestingly, a survey by the King Prajadhipok’s Institute found that most voters did not read the draft constitution at all before voting. Furthermore, the percentage of voters who never read the constitution before voting was higher in Bangkok than anywhere else in the country. Areas that voted strongly against the constitution corresponded to survey results that indicate areas where readership of the constitution that was higher than the national average.
Close to 40 participants attended the 1.5-hour seminar.