Constitutional Reform, Legal Consciousness, and Citizen Participation in Thailand

摘要

Studying the prospects for citizen participation in the legal systems of Asian societies reminds us of the unique nature of the liberal European-American legal system, and how important its historical and cultural antecedents are to the establishment of its particular forms of citizen participation and empowerment. The effects of political and legal institutions depend upon the symbolic and social resources that a society offers. Juries function because courts work in certain ways in Europe and the United States. The impact of lay judges on popular perceptions of courts is important where courts themselves are regarded as playing an important, if complex, role in protecting democratic values. The unique virtue of a liberal legal system is that it is perceived as supporting democracy (by guaranteeing the rules of democracy) while also acting independently of majoritarian or popular justice. An independent judiciary can protect individuals against abusive officials or an abusive public. The very independence of liberal legal institutions often makes them appear remote and sometimes unpopular. Lay participation is one mechanism that arguably helps close the gap between judicial independence and popular legitimacy. The preconditions for citizen participation are not met, however, where the law seems irrelevant to everyday practices of redressing injustice perpetrated by other citizens and government officials. Legal consciousness is one aspect of globalization. Legal consciousness linking the legitimacy of governmental institutions to citizen participation cannot develop unless rights and participation appear to be good bets. For some—primarily those benefiting from globalization—they often are. Others who have not benefited from globalization may not perceive their rights and participation the same. Our brief look at Thailand shows that the effects of globalization are more complex than such a simple economic or social calculus could predict. A large majority of Thai trust traditional authorities and mistrust conflict resolution through partisan political institutions. For them, traditional authority may seem to be the only thing that works. The context is critical. Global development creates a motive for change, but existing institutions and available resources shape the direction of change. It is hard to imagine common people, who may perceive themselves marginalized by the politics of development and globalization, investing legitimacy in criminal juries where the military and police are trusted to take care of the nation but are often perceived to be lawless. It is equally difficult to imagine common people investing legitimacy in civil juries and lay judges where ordinary citizens do not think law offers a meaningful solution for conflict.