Party Dissolution Is Never The Answer

[chevykanteve]

(Bangkok Post -- Partial Copy)

ANCHORMAN

Party dissolution is never the answer

ML NATTAKORN DEVAKULA

The constitution must be amended to prevent the dissolution of political parties. If we are ever to live as a ''free'' people, our right to be represented by a political party of our own choosing cannot be infringed upon.

Only two types of political parties are ever meant to be dissolved: a party oriented with communist ideology, and a party intentionally founded by military officers to counter those of regular politicians. The rest should be allowed to grow into institutions.

Some parties in Thailand are mission-oriented and formed for a particular purpose. These parties normally do not last very long. You could put on this list the Samakki Tham party, or even in this past election the Puea Pandin party or Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana party.

Some political parties revolved around personalities and were able to function so long as these personalities remained the focal point. This would include Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh's New Aspiration party or Chalerm Yubamrung's Muan Chon party.

Then there is the extreme case of Matchimathipataya party, which needs no further explanation.

But in the evolution of the idea of the political party in the kingdom, we have seen progress..........

Take the Democrat party, for instance. It has undergone changes over a span of 62 years, through four different eras (the fourth one being the present), with seven leaders.

The party that has a total membership of approximately 2,845,117 people and 195 branch offices (26 in Bangkok, 46 in the Central provinces, 37 in the North, 35 in the Northeast, and 51 in the South), has had leaders from various backgrounds. Among the seven, we have seen a blueblood, a colonel, a lawyer, currently a pure-politician and, perhaps in the future, a former investment banker. The Democrat party of Thailand was not an institution from day one; it developed into one over time.

The Chart Thai party is the perfect example of how a party can alter in appearance and structure over time, grow and change, to become more than just a family empire.

Though not a national power house yet, it is now becoming an institution after having gone through the influences of several family names.

Chart Thai has undergone many reformations from the 1974 founding days of Pol Gen Pramarn Adireksarn, to Admiral Somboon Rahong, to Gen Chatichai Choonhavan, and to current leader Banharn Silpa-archa.

This 35-year-old party, which now has 14 branches nationwide, also seeks to move towards becoming a more nationally significant institution as it goes through another transitory phase.

Though heavy criticism has been levelled at the People Power party (PPP) for being a party fully controlled by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, those who understand inside politics are aware that even the PPP is becoming more of an institution by the day. Not that the PPP is not still financially backed by only several individuals, but it is certainly the case that the financiers of the competing factions within this governing party do not necessarily control the total direction of the party. Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej has more independence from former PM Thaksin than most are aware of. While the camps under Mr Chalerm, Newin Chidchob and other cliques vie for greater influence, direct-lines like Noppadon Pattama and Jakrapob Penkair also have a level playing field in this battle.

Meanwhile, policy has been largely determined by intellectual and marketing types like Pansak Vinyaratna and Mingkwan Sangsuwan, while the execution of policies is carried out by new ministers, as is newly represented by the class of Santi Prompat, Chaiya Sasomsab and a host of others. In effect, the dream of seeing Thai Rak Thai party (TRT) not entirely manipulated by one man with all the say has accidentally transformed into reality.

..................... ........................ ........................

The TRT's dissolution interrupted that transition, but it is still on course to taking root. A legal conviction against Mr Thaksin down the road may actually be the final catalyst in catapulting the PPP into a political institution, where funding will finally come _ on an equal sharing basis _ from all the factions' members.

Dissolving political parties has never been the answer to Thailand's prayers. We are a country where most politically relevant entities that end up taking shape revolve around few pro-active individuals. From non-governmental organisations to television channels to newspapers, this is normally the case. Yet developmental progress can be made over long intervals to foster the constructive momentum for institution-building.

A suspension of this development process, or in the transition period, from personality cult to viable and enduring politically-active and ideologically-determined political institution is a crime. It may have taken 10 or 20 years for TRT to transform into such, but it would have. It could take 5 or 10 years for PPP to transform into such, but it could.

Parties are not meant to be dissolved because they are the only institutions that represent people of all backgrounds, especially those folks living in rural underdeveloped villages who have no access to policy creation.

The enfeebled 14 million members formerly of TRT may seem just numbers to anti-politician crusaders. But what about the 2,727,611 registered members of Chart Thai, the 2,845,117 Democrat members, or the currently small but gradually increasing membership of the PPP? Are we supposed to regard these as insignificant, too?

How far will the legal community of this nation go to prove that Thailand is supposed to be run by politicians but that political parties cannot be allowed to grow?

If the transition is going to be made from personality cult or personal fiefdom to political parties acting as an institution in representing the interests of the masses, the constitution _ organic laws on political parties and elections _ cannot be framed to lock the Election Commission into dissolving parties when a minor offence is committed.

The drafters of such laws should be ashamed of themselves for the heinous act, which will in the coming weeks debilitate our democracy.

Where is the sense in holding all members of a political party responsible when a misdemeanour is committed by one member of the executive board of that party without the board's approval? This part of the law was drafted to prevent the growth of the political party system in the kingdom.

I never saw the Republican Party in the United States be put up for dissolution when their representative Richard M Nixon, as president, was exposed for wiretapping the campaign headquarters of an opposing political candidate.

I wonder whether we would have ever seen political institutions in the US form, if their Supreme Court kept dissolving political parties..........................................

As the country moves further into deadlock, it is indeed time to question the appropriateness and practicality of Thailand's transformation into an overly litigious society.

The practical realities of living in a litigious society becomes burdensome and damaging to development overall.

Having constitutional organic laws that are excessively stringent with regard to the freedom of politicians and policy-makers does not help. Making matters worse is the application of these laws with an overly sceptical attitude in regulating any and all actions of political parties.

It is ironic and unfortunate that for a society that seems to always ask for ideologically pure politicians and strong political institutions, we Thai people find ourselves on the receiving end of the interception of the very evolutionary precursors required for such establishment.

The dream of the litigious person to see politicians become powerless by the dissolution of all but one political party will _ mark my words _ facilitate in the creation of an even worse nightmare, where all parties become mere nominal representatives of their predecessors. This is why in a democracy they let the politicians run the asylum and not lawyers or judges.............................................

[slapout]

Should not waste paper reprinting this drivel. Guess who sponsered him;

[chevykanteve]

Should not waste paper reprinting this drivel. Guess who sponsered him;

"Guess who sponsered [sic] him;" Why don't you tell us?

[jdinasia]

Drivel ---- when the party officers break the law to further their own agenda then party dissolution is the only plausible consequence!

[londonthai]

Only two types of political parties are ever meant to be dissolved: a party oriented with communist ideology, and a party intentionally founded by military officers to counter those of regular politicians.

so fascist parties, are OK in thailand - patriotic, nationalistic, xenophobic idealogy well matches these of the state propaganda.

if you are going to follow closely the USA political model, than all political parties, including the communist one, is allowing to exists, it's a constitutional right to organise.

[steveromagnino]

The only analysis this analyst has done is finding information from his analysis less the y less the sis. Thanks for the party political Ai-Bleum, next time please stick to selling cars or getting in losing fights with elected senators. Neither of these waste as much paper as the pointless attempts at analysis this guy lays out in BKK Post.

Amusing to read his claims about how PPP runs, which is at least iMHO quite far off base and attempts to paint PPP as some sort of dynasty and legitimate party - it is merely the same factions as TRT and most of the coalition governments prior to that with the same families and a few added 'experts' like Mingkwan and Jakapop thrown in.

To suggest a level playing field between factions within PPP is absolutely the stupidest thing I hear in this article.

But every time I read something from this clown, or listen to Jakapop, or hear from Noppadol, I am fully aware that there is an agenda running the background, and therefore 'mileage may vary'.

I really wonder how seriously anyone actually takes his claim 'those who understand inside politics are aware that even the PPP is becoming more of an institution by the day' - certainly not any single person that has dealings with the Taksin loyalist faction

I suppose given that it began as a proxy for a banned party and the leader was elected on that basis, I guess it started from zero, so any marginal improvement is indeed more by the day.

Some people write because they have a gift with words. Some people write because they have unique viewpoints.

Methinks the Nissan car salesman believes himself to solid grasp of the english language and cutting opinions that would terrify the 'bangkok elite'; to most genuine news writers/journalists I know, he is considered to be conceited, pompous, verbose and opinionated to the point most consider there is no chance at all he is not on the pay roll of his favourite subject and could be best considered a suck up. His grasp of the concept of evidence is also usually found wanting....

But who knows....maybe all the farangs here love reading a Thai attempting a Norman Mailer style of writing.

Having said all that....I believe in bans for individuals and punishments for leaders....not so much dissolution despite the magnitude of the crimes involved. What a pity that we have to read through how great PPP really is to get to a pretty basic point.

Of course....punishment of individuals is not discussed here.... because it is expected that the punishment will always be pushed onto an underling. So how can you control the kind of antics that only a party with absolutely no morals at all would be willing to attempt??????

no doubt.....if I buy a Tiada I can get the answer in the next exciting issue of ..... K Bleum's guide to politics.

[lannarebirth]

I would agree with the premise of this editorial, if not the specifics, if Thailand were a country where the rule of law is present. Because it is not, I believe these draconian measures are warranted if the country wants to stay on the democratic path. It is certainly imperfect, but then again aren't most things?

[lannarebirth]

The only analysis this analyst has done is finding information from his analysis less the y less the sis. Thanks for the party political Ai-Bleum, next time please stick to selling cars or getting in losing fights with elected senators. Neither of these waste as much paper as the pointless attempts at analysis this guy lays out in BKK Post.

Amusing to read his claims about how PPP runs, which is at least iMHO quite far off base and attempts to paint PPP as some sort of dynasty and legitimate party - it is merely the same factions as TRT and most of the coalition governments prior to that with the same families and a few added 'experts' like Mingkwan and Jakapop thrown in.

To suggest a level playing field between factions within PPP is absolutely the stupidest thing I hear in this article.

But every time I read something from this clown, or listen to Jakapop, or hear from Noppadol, I am fully aware that there is an agenda running the background, and therefore 'mileage may vary'.

I really wonder how seriously anyone actually takes his claim 'those who understand inside politics are aware that even the PPP is becoming more of an institution by the day' - certainly not any single person that has dealings with the Taksin loyalist faction

I suppose given that it began as a proxy for a banned party and the leader was elected on that basis, I guess it started from zero, so any marginal improvement is indeed more by the day.

Some people write because they have a gift with words. Some people write because they have unique viewpoints.

Methinks the Nissan car salesman believes himself to solid grasp of the english language and cutting opinions that would terrify the 'bangkok elite'; to most genuine news writers/journalists I know, he is considered to be conceited, pompous, verbose and opinionated to the point most consider there is no chance at all he is not on the pay roll of his favourite subject and could be best considered a suck up. His grasp of the concept of evidence is also usually found wanting....

But who knows....maybe all the farangs here love reading a Thai attempting a Norman Mailer style of writing.

Having said all that....I believe in bans for individuals and punishments for leaders....not so much dissolution despite the magnitude of the crimes involved. What a pity that we have to read through how great PPP really is to get to a pretty basic point.

Of course....punishment of individuals is not discussed here.... because it is expected that the punishment will always be pushed onto an underling. So how can you control the kind of antics that only a party with absolutely no morals at all would be willing to attempt??????

no doubt.....if I buy a Tiada I can get the answer in the next exciting issue of ..... K Bleum's guide to politics.

I've caught his act on the tube a couple of times. He's a first class doofus.

[Siripon]

Sorrayut had to throw Bleum off his TV programme because of Bleum's inadequate grasp of various aspects of Thai life, and then when he went to see Aphisit he came out of the Democrat's building a considerable time later, making it look like he had had a long chat with Aphisit whilst in truth he had been kept waiting to see him for most of the time.

An apologist for Frank.

[Ricardo]

Only two types of political parties are ever meant to be dissolved: a party oriented with communist ideology, and a party intentionally founded by military officers to counter those of regular politicians.

So even the PPP, claiming to be standing up for the ordinary people, feel threatened by communism, and fail to support their right to exist. Perhaps because the one party merely claims to care for the ordinary people, while the other party might just actually mean it, and steal their rhetoric ?

This isn't the 1970s, Thailand need no longer fear an imminent communist take-over, so why does this undemocratic policy continue ?

Am I the only one who is reminded of Mony Python's 'Life of Brian', and the Popular Liberation Front for Judea, by all this ?