Thailand’s United Thai Nation Party Condemns Parliament-Drafted Constitution for Excluding Voters

Thailand’s ongoing charter debate has taken on a new dimension as the opposition United Thai Nation Party (UTN) refuses to back the current amendment proposal, branding it a parliament-crafted blueprint that sidelines genuine public input. In the weeks leading to a critical extraordinary session on 10–11 December, questions linger over whether this draft can win popular approval when both the 35-seat drafting committee and its 35-member public engagement panel would emerge from the legislature rather than directly from voters.

UTN’s Stand: Rejecting a Lawmaker-Driven Rewrite

UTN list MP Witthaya Kaewparadai has emerged as the most vocal critic in Parliament, insisting that any constitution whose architects are chosen by sitting MPs and senators cannot claim a people’s mandate. He warns that the select mechanism amounts to a blank check for those who engineered the 2017 charter, perpetuating political interests rather than reflecting citizens’ aspirations. Instead, he urges article-by-article amendments as a more transparent and cost-effective path that would avoid handing drafting power exclusively to the establishment elite.

Dissecting the Draft: Committees and Constraints

The proposed amendment package mandates a twin-panel structure: a 35-member constitution-drafting committee and a 35-member public participation panel, both chosen by Parliament. The process allows 360 days for completion and bars any changes to Chapters 1 and 2, which enshrine the monarchy. Lawmakers stripped of electoral rights or facing disqualifications are also excluded from committee roles, limiting the pool of candidates. Critics argue these rules lock in the status quo and sideline community voices in favour of familiar political backers.

Academic Voices: Doubts Over Inclusivity

Leading constitutional scholars share UTN’s reservations. Assistant Professor Siripan Noksuan Swasdee highlights the contentious “20-pick-1” formula, saying it concentrates influence in party leadership instead of reflecting grassroots diversity. Associate Professor Wanwipha Tirasangka points out that while the draft requires up to three referendums, it denies voters a direct say in selecting the drafters themselves, risking tokenistic participation. Professor Yutthaporn Issarachai notes that Article 256 of the current charter precludes a fully elected constituent assembly without an explicit referendum mandate, meaning any genuine shift hinges on future ballot design.

Constitutional Court Clears Parliamentary Course

A separate legal challenge filed by activist Ruangkrai Leekitwattana accused the House Speaker of sidestepping cabinet approval for a referendum before amending the charter. On Monday, the Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed the petition, ruling that parliamentary deliberations on the amendment did not amount to an attempt to overthrow the democratic regime. The decision removes one procedural barrier but does nothing to resolve lingering questions about the draft’s legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary Thais.

Political Chess Before December Votes

With ruling-coalition partners Bhumjaithai and the Palang Pracharath Party aligned, and a contingent of senators often sympathetic to Bhumjaithai’s agenda, the amendment is widely expected to survive its second and third readings during the extraordinary session on 10–11 December. However, talk of a snap general election before that date could abruptly terminate the process, forcing a return to square one. UTN’s refusal to support the draft underscores a broader strategic divide over whether wholesale reform or piecemeal fixes better serve Thailand’s long-term stability.

Public Mood and Referendum Fatigue

Opinion polls suggest Thai citizens are weary of repeated constitutional debates. A September Nida survey found 37.6% of respondents strongly backing a new charter, while a Super Poll in October revealed 55.8% prioritizing improvements in political conduct over text overhauls. Meanwhile, 49.2% of those surveyed favour combining a referendum with the next general election, hinting at referendum fatigue if multiple ballots proceed. These mixed signals reflect a populace eager for meaningful change but sceptical of procedural gimmicks.

Lessons from Abroad and Thai Adaptation

Around the world, constitutional drafting ranges from parliamentary select committees in Angola and Zimbabwe to fully elected constituent assemblies in Namibia and Tunisia. Each model balances expertise, speed and legitimacy in different ways. For Thailand, the choice between a legislature-led commission and a more open format remains at the heart of the debate, raising questions about how to reconcile institutional continuity with genuine popular sovereignty.

Alternatives on the Table: Article-by-Article vs. Full Rewrite

UTN’s call for targeted amendments rather than an all-encompassing rewrite taps into concerns over budgetary waste and diluted accountability. Proponents of this incremental route argue that small-scale revisions to problematic articles could secure quicker results while allowing citizens to scrutinize each change. Opponents warn that piecemeal fixes may entrench deeper structural flaws, leaving the core system untouched and perpetuating the very issues that have fuelled Thailand’s repeated constitutional overhauls.