Revamping Thailand's Political System Might Be Difficult

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Revamping the system might be difficult

By Avudh Panananda

The Nation

For more than two decades, academics and politicians have been tinkering with the Constitution and their latest proposal to revamp the political system sounds like a fool's errand.

The Sombat Thamrongthanyawong panel has drawn flak even though its final report recommending a sweeping rewrite of charter provisions will only be released next month.

The panel recommends that a Constitution Drafting Assembly, tasked to transform the political landscape, be formed. Panel chairman Sombat outlined the advantages of his recommendations, but coalition and opposition politicians joined forces to point out all the disadvantages.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva admits that Sombat's recommendations are a bit drastic, though he has yet to say if he is for or against the proposed changes. More importantly he will have to decide whether to push for the drafting assembly to be created and have it rewrite the charter based on ideas that have already been given the thumbs down.

In the face of an inconclusive debate on rewriting the charter as a means to bring about reconciliation, Abhisit last year appointed the Sombat panel as a non-partisan body to recommend change.

The panel decided to issue advice on the charter rewrite in two batches. In the first batch, it addressed two urgent issues - the framework for negotiating international agreements and the electoral system.

Two weeks ago, the Parliament approved the final passage of charter amendments on two issues. Despite the original objective to forge reconciliation by amending the charter, parties concerned seem to have overlooked the fact that the approved amendments have no bearing on the political divide, particularly on the rivalry between the red and yellow shirts.

For the second batch of recommendations, the Sombat panel aimed for a major overhaul of the political system via the CDA.

Even though Sombat is upbeat that his proposed revamp would be the remedy for social divisions, he still owes the public an explanation on how recommendations designed to boost the government's life and the prime ministerial mandate will bring an end to fractious politics.

In 1997, Thailand underwent political reforms and promulgated the people's charter, seen by many as the best basic law the country has ever had.

Among the key features of the suspended 1997 charter were provisions to enhance stability, strong governments and political parties.

The well-intentioned provisions turned out to be a trapdoor for runaway power. The then-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his supporters manipulated the political system in order to consolidate power and create an autocratic regime. Political turmoil ensued culminating in the 2006 coup.

The 2007 Constitution is seen as an antidote to flaws detected in the suspended charter. Owing to strong concerns about preventing a repeat of autocracy, certain charter provisions have had a crippling effect on the functioning of governments and political parties.

Many have blamed the charter provisions for persisting political animosity, hence the push for a charter rewrite. A number of panels were formed to recommend charter amendments.

It may be time for relevant parties to start asking a serious question: is the Constitution a pretext for a power struggle or the real cause for a political divide due to flawed provisions?

The major thrust of Sombat's arguments is in favour of having a strong prime minister and a stable government. Based on his recommendations, the party leader winning the most popular votes should have the mandate to form the government.

Less than five years ago, Thaksin used popular votes to justify his regime. Is the country on the path of creating another political monster?

-- The Nation 2011-02-22

[AZBill]

The Constitution means nothing as long as the military is the real shot caller and corruption is the order of the day.

[junglist]

The Constitution means nothing as long as the military is the real shot caller and corruption is the order of the day.

wisdom

[silp1979]

The Constitution means nothing as long as the military is the real shot caller and corruption is the order of the day.

wisdom

agree...sure thaksin was corrupt but corruption is so everyday in thailand....he took it from the military and they did not like to see there wealth go....

[junglist]

The Constitution means nothing as long as the military is the real shot caller and corruption is the order of the day.

wisdom

agree...sure thaksin was corrupt but corruption is so everyday in thailand....he took it from the military and they did not like to see there wealth go....

he took it from all over and spread hate and death.

[marquess]

The Constitution means nothing as long as the military is the real shot caller and corruption is the order of the day.

Not much point in having a constitution, if you have to re write it every few years. We do whatever we want when we want the law means nothing!

[selftaopath]

The Constitution means nothing as long as the military is the real shot caller and corruption is the order of the day.

BINGO!!!!!!

Thank you. Very well put. So I would not expect any significant changes in a country where "rule of law" is but a lofty saying/thought/dream/nightmare.

[phiphidon]

Even though Sombat is upbeat that his proposed revamp would be the remedy for social divisions, he still owes the public an explanation on how recommendations designed toboost the government's life and the prime ministerial mandate will bring an end to fractious politics.

The major thrust of Sombat's arguments is in favour of having a strong prime minister and a stable government. Based on his recommendations, the party leader winning the mostpopular votes should have the mandate to form the government.

Less than five years ago, Thaksin used popular votes to justify his regime. Is the country on the path of creating another political monster?

Same same,but different? Not really. I'm not sure it is the country that is on the path of creating a political monster. After all, Abhisit called for the reform so it's hardly suprising that the proposal appears to be in his and his Partys' best interests. The Charter Reform Panel is headed by Sombat but as he said the PM will chair the meeting and provide the committee with guidelines.

Amongst the members of the panel? Lets go to the Bangkok Pundit;

http://asiancorrespo...reconciliation/

BP: Let's have a look at some of these committee members.The committee head Sombat called on Thaksin to resign in 2006 when there were political protests, appointed by the junta to the NLA, Samak in 2008, but opposed the call for Abhisit to dissolve parliament in April 2010 calling it "unreasonable".Banjerd "Thaksin is worse than Hitler" Singkaneti was one of the junta appointees to investigate the crimes of the Thaksin regime.

Teerana Bhongmakapat is a former advisor to the Democrats and specifically Supachai P when he was Deputy PM.

Chaiya Yimwilai was the government spokesman for the military-installed Surayud government and now acts as Commerce Minister Porntiva's (of Bhum Jai Thai) chief adviser

Another member as per PRD (as reported by The National News Bureau of Thailand Public Relations Department - my words) ;

"Moreover, Associate Professor Dr. Pichai Rattanadilok Na Phuket, the deputy Dean of NIDA,stated that the government had made terribly wrong decisions to collide with the PAD and arrest two PAD's key leaders. He claimed that the actions were taken without any consideration of possible consequences, one of whichhad reflected on the government's hidden agenda and ulterior motives.

Dr. Pichai also added that the government's inhumane decisions proved that PM Somchai Wongsawat and his cabinet were no longer accepted to run the nation. In essence, he predicted that the PM would have to resign due to mounting pressure exerted by the public and constant inflow of PAD's supporters at the Government house".

Sawaeng Boonchalermvipas was appointed to the National Legislative Assembly by the junta and in 2008 signed a petition calling on PPP not to choose Samak as PM again after the Constitution Court removed him.

BP: Some of the others were appointed by the junta to draft the 2007 Constitution. For a number of them it is hard to find many publiccomments. Now, not all of the statements by the above necessarily disqualify themselves from being members, but just look at what one of the members, Somkid Lertpaitoon, said in 2008:

"If they really want to have a new Constitution, the drafters must be completely neutral".

BP: This was, of course, when the pro-Thaksin PPP wanted to amend the constitution. BP would be satisifed with a represenative groupof academics, but is there even one red sympathiser among the 19? Now, imagine if Thaksin or a pro-Thaksin party had selected a similar bunch of academics who were ideologically sympathetic to the reds, wouldn't there bean outrage?

Yes. Do you see any words of criticism for the current 19?

[spidermike007]

Even though Sombat is upbeat that his proposed revamp would be the remedy for social divisions, he still owes the public an explanation on how recommendations designed toboost the government's life and the prime ministerial mandate will bring an end to fractious politics.

The major thrust of Sombat's arguments is in favour of having a strong prime minister and a stable government. Based on his recommendations, the party leader winning the mostpopular votes should have the mandate to form the government.

Less than five years ago, Thaksin used popular votes to justify his regime. Is the country on the path of creating another political monster?

Same same,but different? Not really. I'm not sure it is the country that is on the path of creating a political monster. After all, Abhisit called for the reform so it's hardly suprising that the proposal appears to be in his and his Partys' best interests. The Charter Reform Panel is headed by Sombat but as he said the PM will chair the meeting and provide the committee with guidelines.

Amongst the members of the panel? Lets go to the Bangkok Pundit;

http://asiancorrespo...reconciliation/

BP: Let's have a look at some of these committee members.The committee head Sombat called on Thaksin to resign in 2006 when there were political protests, appointed by the junta to the NLA, Samak in 2008, but opposed the call for Abhisit to dissolve parliament in April 2010 calling it "unreasonable".Banjerd "Thaksin is worse than Hitler" Singkaneti was one of the junta appointees to investigate the crimes of the Thaksin regime.

Teerana Bhongmakapat is a former advisor to the Democrats and specifically Supachai P when he was Deputy PM.

Chaiya Yimwilai was the government spokesman for the military-installed Surayud government and now acts as Commerce Minister Porntiva's (of Bhum Jai Thai) chief adviser

Another member as per PRD (as reported by The National News Bureau of Thailand Public Relations Department - my words) ;

"Moreover, Associate Professor Dr. Pichai Rattanadilok Na Phuket, the deputy Dean of NIDA,stated that the government had made terribly wrong decisions to collide with the PAD and arrest two PAD's key leaders. He claimed that the actions were taken without any consideration of possible consequences, one of whichhad reflected on the government's hidden agenda and ulterior motives.

Dr. Pichai also added that the government's inhumane decisions proved that PM Somchai Wongsawat and his cabinet were no longer accepted to run the nation. In essence, he predicted that the PM would have to resign due to mounting pressure exerted by the public and constant inflow of PAD's supporters at the Government house".

Sawaeng Boonchalermvipas was appointed to the National Legislative Assembly by the junta and in 2008 signed a petition calling on PPP not to choose Samak as PM again after the Constitution Court removed him.

BP: Some of the others were appointed by the junta to draft the 2007 Constitution. For a number of them it is hard to find many publiccomments. Now, not all of the statements by the above necessarily disqualify themselves from being members, but just look at what one of the members, Somkid Lertpaitoon, said in 2008:

"If they really want to have a new Constitution, the drafters must be completely neutral".

BP: This was, of course, when the pro-Thaksin PPP wanted to amend the constitution. BP would be satisifed with a represenative groupof academics, but is there even one red sympathiser among the 19? Now, imagine if Thaksin or a pro-Thaksin party had selected a similar bunch of academics who were ideologically sympathetic to the reds, wouldn't there bean outrage?

Yes. Do you see any words of criticism for the current 19?

There is very, very little possibility of political reform here. There is simply no real will to reform things. Corruption is a good example. There are enormous programs under way in Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, and China to root out corruption. Major figures are being tried, charged, and sentenced to significant amounts of time in prison, and being fined massive amounts of money. How much of that is happening here? No political will, or courage to do so. When is the last time you have heard of the "corruption commission" working on anything other than election fraud? That is all they are working on. Period. Very disappointing to anyone concerned about arresting the massive amount of corruption here.

[bangon04]

I just love the title of the OP.

"might" be difficult

does this qualify as an understatement?

[whybother]

I just love the title of the OP.

"might" be difficult

does this qualify as an understatement?

It "might" be difficult, or it "might" be impossible.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Good heavens. First Pravit, and now Avudh is writing intelligent copy? What's next, published letters to the editor at xxx will no longer be asinine?

The Constitution means nothing as long as the military is the real shot caller and corruption is the order of the day.

It's fatalistic to shrug off chances to improve the system with comments that fail to recognise the reality. The military gets it's power from procedure. Procedure is set by 'elected' entities who have historically rubber-stamped the continuance of those procedures whilst the nation has been transfixed by soapies and scandals.

An interesting study might assess how often Thaksin challenged the military, compared with Abhisit. The results would likely surprise many.

The problem here is not the military; in fact, the most surprising thing about the military in Thailand is how restrained their corruption is (given their almost-unbridled powers). The problem here is lack of education, and the blame for that is on everyone involved in the process. Whether it's families pulling their daughters out of school at young ages with delusions that it's a 13 year old girl's responsibility to support her able-bodied extended family, successive governments' failure to address the uncomfortable issues of poverty or take meaningful strides to fund educational campaigns or hand down appropriate budgets, or the media's failure to rise above tabloid journalism except on all-too-rare occasions, or the rank-and-file middle classes who largely couldn't give a rats.

Military, police and government corruption isn't the problem. But it's hecka convenient to believe so. Convenient, but not remotely correct. It's society that is corrupt, and until that changes, why would anyone be surprised that those in power abuse their authority? When the people who put them in power either don't care, or aren't intelligent enough to understand that power is always with the people.

Or maybe they do understand. And it's just more convenient to pretend that they don't.

Even though Sombat is upbeat that his proposed revamp would be the remedy for social divisions, he still owes the public an explanation on how recommendations designed to boost the government's life and the prime ministerial mandate will bring an end to fractious politics.

The major thrust of Sombat's arguments is in favour of having a strong prime minister and a stable government. Based on his recommendations, the party leader winning the most popular votes should have the mandate to form the government.

Less than five years ago, Thaksin used popular votes to justify his regime. Is the country on the path of creating another political monster?

Same same,but different? Not really. I'm not sure it is the country that is on the path of creating a political monster. After all, Abhisit called for the reform so it's hardly suprising that the proposal appears to be in his and his Partys' best interests.

Do you even read the copy before you rip out your rhetoric?

There is hilarity in your comment above, which suggests you didn't even read the part you quoted.

[jimbeam1]

I just love the title of the OP.

"might" be difficult

does this qualify as an understatement?

Miracles are difficult. What they are talking about is impossible.

jb1

[phiphidon]

Do you even read the copy before you rip out your rhetoric?

There is hilarity in your comment above, which suggests you didn't even read the part you quoted.

Oh do enlighten me scooter.

Edit: On second thoughts let me just guess that you are going to pick up on the part about the party leader winning the most popular votes should have the mandate to form the government?

Edited February 22, 2011 by phiphidon

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Do you even read the copy before you rip out your rhetoric?

There is hilarity in your comment above, which suggests you didn't even read the part you quoted.

Oh do enlighten me scooter.

Edit: On second thoughts let me just guess that you are going to pick up on the part about the party leader winning the most popular votes should have the mandate to form the government?

I like you because you have the ability to do exactly what you've done above lol.

Yes, of course I'm going to "pick up" on that.

...recommendations designed to boost the government's life and the prime ministerial mandate...

The major thrust of Sombat's arguments is in favour of having a strong prime minister and a stable government. Based on his recommendations, the party leader winning the most popular votes should have the mandate to form the government.

Less than five years ago, Thaksin used popular votes to justify his regime. Is the country on the path of creating another political monster?

Those recommendations would be music to Thaksin's ears. And they're not conducive to effective democratic process.

You do not put power into an executive, unless you have the checks and balances to keep that power in check. Effective democracy is a weak government. If you want a strong government, go to Libya or Kazakhstan.

Thaksin played the game the best, and it was a game poorly conceived. Which is why the referee had to jump in and restart play. They should have done a bit better with the rule refinements, but they were under a heck of a lot of pressure.

Effective democracy doesn't put power into an executive, and it doesn't place unchecked powers into the grubby hands of the legislature either (that would be incredibly foolish). Effective democracy is all about the judicial branch. You must place all your power into institutions rather than give it to game-players. By virtue of the fact that it's a game, the winners of the game are the worst people to referee it.

Thaksin ran roughshod over the institutions the 1997 Constitution conceived to regulate the way he played the game. As a result, those fledgling institutions are (perhaps irrevocably) weakened. But their value remains, and they must be strengthened if Thailand will ever get a shot at effective democracy.

Sombat is a fool. They should get me to do his job.

[yumidesign]

I just love the title of the OP.

"might" be difficult

does this qualify as an understatement?

insert 'impossible'

[phiphidon]

Do you even read the copy before you rip out your rhetoric?

There is hilarity in your comment above, which suggests you didn't even read the part you quoted.

Oh do enlighten me scooter.

Edit: On second thoughts let me just guess that you are going to pick up on the part about the party leader winning the most popular votes should have the mandate to form the government?

I like you because you have the ability to do exactly what you've done above lol.

Yes, of course I'm going to "pick up" on that.

...recommendations designed to boost the government's life and the prime ministerial mandate...

The major thrust of Sombat's arguments is in favour of having a strong prime minister and a stable government. Based on his recommendations, the party leader winning the most popular votes should have the mandate to form the government.

Less than five years ago, Thaksin used popular votes to justify his regime. Is the country on the path of creating another political monster?

Those recommendations would be music to Thaksin's ears. And they're not conducive to effective democratic process.

You do not put power into an executive, unless you have the checks and balances to keep that power in check. Effective democracy is a weak government. If you want a strong government, go to Libya or Kazakhstan.

Thaksin played the game the best, and it was a game poorly conceived. Which is why the referee had to jump in and restart play. They should have done a bit better with the rule refinements, but they were under a heck of a lot of pressure.

Effective democracy doesn't put power into an executive, and it doesn't place unchecked powers into the grubby hands of the legislature either (that would be incredibly foolish). Effective democracy is all about the judicial branch. You must place all your power into institutions rather than give it to game-players. By virtue of the fact that it's a game, the winners of the game are the worst people to referee it.

Thaksin ran roughshod over the institutions the 1997 Constitution conceived to regulate the way he played the game. As a result, those fledgling institutions are (perhaps irrevocably) weakened. But their value remains, and they must be strengthened if Thailand will ever get a shot at effective democracy.

Sombat is a fool. They should get me to do his job.

What would be "music to Thaksins ears" would also be of equal interest to the present incumbent. Maybe Sombat is doing what he has been told to do. No censure debate? There goes the checks and balances then.

The Bangkok Pundit explains a bit more with his piece " The committee for the Re election of the Prime Minister". Those of you old enough to remember Tricky Dicky Nixon will recognise the significance of that subtly altered phrase;

Part 1 - http://asiancorrespo...prime-minister/

Part 2 - http://asiancorrespo...hai-pm-part-ii/

The Bangkok Pundit still wants to believe that such a blatant manipulation of the electoral process hasn't been proposed just to keep Abhisit and the Democrats in power. Me, I'm more cynical.

[hammered]

If you want to keep Thaksin and his mates out of power and keep things gridlocked just go to single constituency PR. It is also far more democratic than constituency systems which are not really OMOV and which millions of votes never count but which are a lot easier for parties and in the west media and lobby groups to manipulate with minimal investment, which is probably why you dont actually see many places with such systems as guiding, controlling, and changing government is something that small groups of the powerful want to do across the world while claiming pewople have a say through democracy. Realpolitik