Political scientists see possibility of post-poll PM selection process failing

By Khanittha Theppajorn 
The Nation

 

After a coup and a new Constitution written in an attempt to steer the country clear of its political impasse, political scientists still see the possibility of continued gridlock after the coming general election.

 

Political scientist Chaiyan Chaiyaporn said on Tuesday that the selection process for a prime minister could fail, leading to the dissolution of Parliament.

 

This is despite the fact that the 2016 Constitution sets out at least two routes to the selection of a prime minister – one within the political parties’ PM candidates lists, and the other an outsider PM.

 

Chaiyan pointed out that the charter did not say for how long Parliament could continue without a premier if he or she was not picked and, if it was taking too long, some MPs might finally yield to a parliamentary dissolution and resort to the controversial “traditional way of ruling”.

 

“But who could call for a dissolution? Could [current PM] General Prayut Chan-o-cha dissolve the elected Parliament?” he asked.

 

The political scientist played out a scenario in which Parliament proposed the candidate that won the most votes in the PM election process, but not a simple majority as required.

 

But that would mean the PM was from a minority, he said.

 

Such an impasse would then enable the traditional way of ruling, like that under Article 7 of the previous constitution – and now Article 5 of the new charter – to have a role, he added.

 

“But personally, I view that if we can respect the rules, we don’t need to call for the traditional way of ruling,” Chaiyan said.

 

His remarks were made during a seminar on Tuesday at King Prajadhipok’s Institute as part of the launch of his new book, which analyses the contentious former Article 7.

 

Nō̜ranit Sētthabut, a political scientist and member of the National Legislative Assembly, said at the same seminar that such a traditional way of ruling had been applied in the past and was not limited to an unelected PM’s appointment.

 

For instance, when Sanya Thammasak dissolved Parliament in 1973, the action was not endorsed by the prevailing charter but followed the traditional way of ruling, he pointed out.

 

“So, it is not limited to only royally appointing a prime minister. It could be interpreted widely,” he said.

 

“But the most important thing is that is must be a solution that is accepted, not a problem or lead to a cataclysm,” he stressed.

 

The present Constitution also has a similar clause, but it is uncertain who would exercise such extra-constitutional power, Noranit said, adding that personally he believed it could be the Constitutional Court because it had the responsibility to finalise matters concerning the charter.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30339363

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-02-21

4 minutes ago, webfact said:

“But the most important thing is that is must be a solution that is accepted, not a problem or lead to a cataclysm,” he stressed.

This is the key to it all.

 

In my view, I do not believe that an "outsider" PM would be acceptable to the Thai people. And if the route of using the appointed Senators in the constitution is attempted, then I don't believe it would be considered legitimate.

 

The numbers 1,9,9,2 just keep rebounding around my brain these days...

 

Whatever the computation, the future looks dim for Thailand. Right now the focus is only on the election but the Sword of damocles is hanging perilously over the appointment of the PM. The citizens will never tolerate another military non-elected PM and the junta is pulling all the stops to prevent PTP; all leading to another round of chaos. Just hope there will be sensible intervention to prevent bloodshed.  

Since the Junta gerry-mandered the 2016 'Constitution' (newer, bigger, better) with what, ~ 270 "articles", they should have just added a third PM qualifier...

 

"In the event that a PM cannot be determined using the previous sections, please feel free to choose one named Prayuth."

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Political scientist Chaiyan Chaiyaporn said on Tuesday that the selection process for a prime minister could fail, leading to the dissolution of Parliament.

Nobody in Thailand would be surprised with failure or the dissolution of Parliament.  But the Thai people deserve better than that. 

10 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

And if the route of using the appointed Senators in the constitution is attempted, then I don't believe it would be considered legitimate.

Wouldn't it be considered legitimate according to the constitution that was endorsed by a majority Thai voters?

And if failing that, might the Constitutional Court step in to resolve the impasse by appointing a PM?

2 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Wouldn't it be considered legitimate according to the constitution that was endorsed by a majority Thai voters?

And if failing that, might the Constitutional Court step in to resolve the impasse by appointing a PM?

Surely the actions of both the Senate and the Constitutional Court could only be legitimate if they were to endorse the selection made by the electorate - either by a majority (outright or achieved by parties combining) or failing that the single largest party.

 

If they choose their preferred candidate, against the wishes of the electorate, then I suggest that the process will lack legitimacy...

10 hours ago, webfact said:

But that would mean the PM was from a minority

You mean like now?

 

While Prayut may resign from his PM position to run for PM (and what's to say he has toresign while he runs for election?), he remains Chief of the NCPO until a new government is installed, ie., appointment of the PM.

If there is some stalemate in electing a PM, could Prayut as NCPO Chief declare a national crisis and assume the reins of the PM himself under Article 44 - as an interim solution of course?

10 hours ago, webfact said:

But that would mean the PM was from a minority, he said.

Yeah, a minority of one 

Were there to be an election pt would win an overwhelming majority. 

Simply because most Thais do not want to be ruled by the military, and they see the Democrats as being synonymous with the military. 

If the pt won  (and they would ) Suthep and his cronies would be back in the streets. The military would not support the elected government and so on and so on. 

29 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Wouldn't it be considered legitimate according to the constitution that was endorsed by a majority Thai voters?

And if failing that, might the Constitutional Court step in to resolve the impasse by appointing a PM?

Normally I very much like your posts, but if you are going to argue the sanctity of a Thai constitution, then we need to talk. 

 

In theory the Senate could be used to sit a PM. In theory Prayut could just stay on until a new government is formed (a few years down the road). In theory the Supreme Court could sit a PM.

 

I always put politics above the law. If Prayut remains in the PM chair, then I think that the Thai people will come out into the streets for the fourth time this century, and I can't see that ending well no matter the outcome. If the street wins, then Thailand is back to square one with no rule of law or accepted structure(s). If Prayut and/or the military won, see Burma next door. If there is a stalemate, then watch the slow, steady decline of a country unable to govern itself.

 

If Thailand has a hope, it is a civilian government that begins the process of retaking power from the military.

 

And even then...