The nation’s two largest
political parties have each condemned the draft charter as an attempt by the
military to extend its time in power. Meanwhile, the ruling National Council
for Peace and Order (NCPO) has all but banned
criticism of the draft, even as it gears up
for an aggressive nationwide pro-draft campaign ahead of an 7 August
referendum.
The draft
(available in Thai here) reflects a widely shared view among
Thailand’s conservative elite regarding the problems at the root of recent
political crises. This new charter can be read as a response to a two-fold
diagnosis of what ails Thai democracy.
First,
political parties have been too large and too strong. Second, ignorant voters
keep electing “bad people”. Given this diagnosis, the new constitution is
designed to provide the appropriate treatment by fragmenting and weakening
political parties, and minimising the power of elected politicians.
The first
complaint is that democratically elected governments since 1997 have been too
powerful. Specifically, the ruling party has been too big and too strong,
leading to a “parliamentary dictatorship” or “tyranny of
the majority.” The drafters appear to be using constitutional reforms to try
and re-fragment the party system and ensure that no party ever again captures a
majority. The primary means for doing this is changing the electoral system
from a mixed-member majority system to what is being called a mixed member
apportionment system (MMA).
Together
with Bangkok Pundit I’ve written elsewhere about the effects of a switch to
MMA. In brief, the big winners from the change are likely to be medium-sized
parties like Bhumjai Thai and Chart Pattana Pheu Paendin. Pheu Thai, on the
other hand, would be the big loser. Under our simulation Pheu Thai goes from a
53 per cent majority of seats to only 45 per cent of the seats, making
coalition government a necessity and opening the door for someone from a party
other than Pheu Thai to become Prime Minister.
In
addition to trying to re-fragment the party system the draft appears designed
to weaken political parties and the connections between parties, voters and
candidates. For example, with the switch to MMA the constitution removes the
ability for voters to cast a separate party list vote—an act that has helped
voters to think about parties, not just candidates. And most controversially,
the draft once again opens the door to a non-elected individual to become Prime
Minster (more on this below).
Let’s
turn to the second diagnosis: ignorant voters keep electing “bad” politicians.
The fundamental problem with Thai democracy, according to many of the ruling
elite, is that ignorant, backwards, immoral voters (particularly from the North
and Northeast) keep electing the wrong people. These bad people then come into
office and (predictably) make a mess of things. The reason that these voters
keep voting for the wrong side is traced back, in this line of thinking, to
their lack of knowledge—their ignorance. This oft-expressed sentiment was most
recently given voice by Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha during his New Year’s speech:
Do
gardeners working outside of the Parliament’s building or farmers know anything
about democracy? Of course not…Don’t talk to me about citizenry. Those people
only go to vote because they were paid.
Given
these attitudes, it is not surprising that the junta has placed so much emphasis
on re-education. These efforts come in a variety of forms, from the frequent
(and now expanded) use of “attitude adjustment”
for regime opponents, to the promotion of Prayuth’s 12 Core Values, to the campaign
to teach citizens about the virtues of the new charter while prohibiting
any public discussion of the draft.
But
despite its best efforts, the junta is learning that re-education is much
harder than anticipated. The NCPO seems genuinely surprised and puzzled that
people still disagree with them, even after all the their efforts to help
people come to a “correct understanding.” Deputy Prime Minister Prawit
Wongsuwan recently lamented the slow progress towards
attitude adjustment, noting that those who underwent sessions still “expressed
their thoughts.”
So, the
draft charter contains a back-up remedy, just in case the junta can’t induce
voters to vote correctly: namely, containment.
The
drafters of this constitution seem determined to go much farther than their
predecessors were willing or able to in 2007 to try and contain or put a hedge
around the power of elected politicians. The idea is to circumscribe the power
of elected politicians while putting more power in the hands of “good people”
(almost by definition, unelected people).
The
keystone of this effort is the 250-seat Senate. Under this draft the Senate
will be a completely appointed body with six seats reserved, ex-officio, for:
the commanders of the army, navy, air force, police; the armed forces
commander-in-chief; and the permanent secretary of the Defense Ministry. When
combined with the 500-seat House this means that a third of the Parliament will
be populated by people chosen by the junta.
In
addition, this unelected Senate will enjoy unprecedented powers over the
elected government, including the responsibility to ensure that the junta’s
reform agenda is carried out by its elected successor. Under the charter the
cabinet is required to report to the Senate every three months on the progress
of reforms. The Senate is empowered to speed up the process if they deem
progress unsatisfactory.
If both
questions posed to voters in the August referendum pass, the Senate will also
play a role in selecting the prime minister. Interestingly, in the original
draft the Senate only participates in choosing a prime minister if the parties
in the House cannot agree on a candidate. However, this was not enough for the
junta-appointed National Legislative Assembly, which passed a resolution adding
the following question to the August referendum.
In order
to ensure continuity in the implementation of national reform under the
national strategy during the five-year transition period, do you agree that a
joint sitting of parliament should be allowed to vote to select a prime
minister and that this should be included in a provisional clause [of the draft
charter]? [Official English Translation].
If
passed, this would give unelected senators the power to join with MPs in
choosing a prime minister right from the start. Under this rule a party would
need to secure 376 votes in order to select its candidate for prime minister
(Pheu Thai captured 265 seats in 2011). In practice this means it would be very
difficult to select a prime minister that the military doesn’t approve of.
In
addition, the five-year transition period means that the Senate will be
guaranteed a role in the selection of at least two prime ministers. The motive
behind giving the unelected Senate a role to play in selecting the prime
minister is spelled out clearly by NLA member Wanchai
Sornsiri: “Senators can help screen out not-so-good or not-so-intelligent
persons. At the same time, they can help support a good prime minister who in
the past was usually not elected or toppled by street protests.”
The
Senate is just one part of a multi-pronged strategy to ensure rule by “good
people”. Other provisions in the charter include:
·
A constitutional obligation for elected government to carry
out policies and reforms begun by the NCPO.
·
New restrictions and oversight on government spending.
·
A Constitutional Court with more authority to intervene in the
political sphere.
·
A byzantine amendment process that makes it nearly impossible for future
governments to amend the constitution.
At the
end of the day Thailand’s constitution leaves elected representatives with much
less power and room to manoeuver. The purpose, it appears, is to contain vile
and venal politicians, much as you would an infectious disease, while
empowering “good people” to manage Thailand’s affairs.
Allen Hicken is Associate Professor in the
Department of Political Science, University of Michigan.
No comments:
Post a Comment