Recent discussions have reignited around the charter reform initiative led by the ruling party, with significant involvement from the opposition.
However, as anticipated, no progress was achieved during these talks.
Following two days of deliberations, a joint assembly of lawmakers attempting to adjust Section 256 of the 2017 constitution was halted due to insufficient attendance.
The current constitution, established under military oversight, presents considerable challenges for amendments, particularly necessitating support from one-third of senators for any changes to be approved.
This requirement, coupled with the evident fractures within the ruling coalition, reveals a strategic maneuver to sidestep outright failure, albeit causing significant delays within the extended amendment process.
A member of the ruling party acknowledged concerns that the proposed bill may not withstand judicial scrutiny, which led to intentional absences that resulted in the lack of quorum.
To overcome these barriers, securing cabinet sponsorship for the proposed charter changes is crucial, signaling collaboration with other influential factions.
A key political figure from the coalition asserted that their party is not obstructing reform efforts but is instead complying with judicial mandates.
As previously dictated by the court, a national referendum is required to gauge public support for a new constitution, a law that has yet to be enacted due to a mandated waiting period.
The ruling party is anticipated to challenge the court’s directives, yet there is no assurance of a favorable outcome.
Last April, a previous request for judicial guidance on parliamentary procedural rights was dismissed, noting prior conclusions on the matter.
Opponents argue that further court intervention is unnecessary and advocate for advancing the amendment process independently of judicial review.
Political Strategy or Genuine Effort?
An expert in political science commented that the ruling party is aware of the slim chances for successful reform and may be attempting to delegate responsibility to its coalition partners.
He suggested that the party is delaying to maintain its voter base while avoiding competition from opposing parties.
As the coalition navigates these complex dynamics, a critical question remains whether other partners will align with the withdrawal from the reform discussions.
If so, the ruling party may have to contend with unresolved challenges until the next electoral cycle.
The absence of cabinet-led proposals underscores ongoing tensions between the ruling party and its coalition allies, who are wary of the likelihood of reforms passing through public approval.
“The political landscape has shifted, and many see staying clear of the reform debates as a safer strategy,” the expert noted.
Extensive Overhaul or Minor Adjustments?
Another political analyst indicated that the judiciary will soon evaluate the constitutionality of the amendment process.
However, clarity on whether the proposed bills will alter or entirely rewrite the charter remains elusive, given their focus on key constitutional provisions.
“For a more credible endeavor, public consent should be sought at the outset.
Yet, if these bills proceed before elections, complications could arise if public sentiment shifts,” he cautioned.
Concerns also persist regarding Senate dynamics, particularly vis-à-vis factions resistant to wholesale reforms.
Despite setbacks, the ruling party’s overarching goal appears to be to modify the amendment process to facilitate focused changes on priority issues.
Should these efforts prove futile, the party can still portray a narrative of its commitment to reform despite legislative challenges.
Looking ahead, structural changes to the constitution may remain a distant prospect, primarily due to insufficient parliamentary backing.
Consequently, the ruling party aims to convey the necessity of a decisive election victory to realize constitutional changes.
“The potential for a new charter hinges on robust collaboration between government officials and the Senate before the next ballot,” he concluded.
