Thai Charter Changes Have Little To Do With Public Interest

[webfact]

THAI TALK

Charter changes have little to do with public interest

By Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

The widespread floods may have overshadowed the controversial move to amend the Constitution. But don't worry: Politicians will make sure that their desire to change the political ground rules won't drown that easily.

There was hardly a whimper when the Cabinet on Tuesday approved in principle two of the six proposed changes to the charter - although that's only the very first step in what is expected to be a long-drawn-out debate on all the old issues related to the Constitution.

As the new six-point charter amendments come up for a public hearing of one kind or another over the next two months, you can bet that the country will return to political uproar again.

Almost without any noticeable noise, the proposed changes - wrapped up in surprising speed by a government-appointed commission headed by Sombat Thamrongthanyawongse - were submitted to the Cabinet for approval.

Under normal circumstances we would have heard a hue and cry - from politicians at least - over one of the most controversial clauses in the Constitution: is the single-constituency system more democratic than multiple-seat constituencies? In other words, should the country adopt an electoral system that has small constituencies with one MP each, or larger ones with several MPs per constituency?

The debate is usually portrayed as an argument over which type of electoral system is more "democratic" - or offers a more representative system that better serves the people's interests. But the real goal behind the prolonged and often bloody battle between politicians on this issue is much more self-serving.

Whatever rhetoric is employed by political parties to win their case on this point, the real bone of contention is between small and large parties and how the system affects their chances of winning seats in an election. It doesn't matter what they tell you, but serving the people is not high on their list of political priorities.

The facts of the matter boil down to this very simple state of affairs: The Democrats and Pheu Thai - the big parties - prefer the status quo under the current charter: big constituencies with multiple MPs. They argue, only partially convincingly, that large constituencies make it more difficult for candidates to buy votes - and compel MPs to work together, since voters cast their ballots for a "team" of - rather than individual - candidates.

Detractors point out that the size of a constituency does not deter cheating in an election. In fact, it may even be easier to "net" a whole "set" of MPs in one constituency than to fish separately for individual candidates - or so the "cheaper-by-the-dozen" theory goes.

On the other hand, the small parties - particularly Newin Chidchob's Bhumjai Thai and Banharn Silpa-archa's Chart Thai Pattana - which can become disproportately powerful in an unstable political landscape - desperately want to return to the single-constituencies pattern. That's the system that gets them the most votes and ensures a good chunk of seats in their strongholds.

Banharn, perhaps the country's most experienced vote-getter, has always been a fervent advocate of the one-man-one-vote principle, in the sense that one voter's ballot should decide the one MP who can represent him or her directly. Advocates of this system have always argued that it is much more "democratic" than the multiple-constituencies sytem, in the sense that "you know who really represents you". They also claim that when a constituency and the number of eligible voters are small, attempted corruption in the ballot-casting process can be minimised more effectively.

Those who are against this practice, no doubt, are quick to point out that when money politics holds sway, smaller constituencies tend to be easier targets for vote-buying. In other words, the smaller the constituency, the more attractive it is to a politician intent upon using every possible kind of fraudulent practice to win.

Now, without fanfare, the Sombat commission has concluded a six-point amendment proposal that includes the return to the single-constituencies system that the two big parties have vehemently opposed all along.

Other less controversial recommendations proposed by the commission include the scrapping of clauses related to the dissolution of parties, jacking up the number of elected senators, and the almost unanimous vote on redefining the kind of treaties and agreements that need prior parliamentary approval.

The Cabinet was supposed to have switched on the green light for only two of the six points. But that doesn't really matter. A joint committee was to be set up to "deliberate" all the proposed changes. That simply means the Democrats are biding their time, waiting to play their cards in the full House debate, to strike out the changes that might affect their electoral chances.

Again, it doesn't really matter where politicians stand on this issue. After all, what has "serving the people" got to do with constitutional amendments anyway?

-- The Nation 2010-11-04