House Will Decide On Next PM: Abhisit

[webfact]

House will decide on next PM: Abhisit

By The Nation

MPs could end up picking the next leader if ballot is unclear, premier says

In his last weekly TV programme before Parliament is dissolved, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday dropped just one hint on Thailand's future political course that could make Thaksin Shinawatra worried sick - post-election power would belong to the person who manages to gather the most support from MPs.

Abhisit's comment that the choice of the next prime minister would rest with the majority of MPs, as no handy formula exists to pick the head of government, underlines the importance of smaller parties while the ruling Democrats and opposition Pheu Thai Party head for what looks to be a close election race.

'Elected by peer vote'

"The next prime minister will be elected by a peer vote in the House," he said in an argument he has been using to defend his government's legitimacy throughout the uprising of the red shirts, who form the support base for Thaksin and his Pheu Thai Party.

Pledging a fair election and clean campaign, Abhisit said the government camp would not abuse it power over the state budget during the crucial run-up to the poll. But while he drew no personal conclusion on whether the party winning the most votes or the one with majority House support should have the right to name the prime minister, he did point out what the charter says.

According to Abhisit, charter provisions were clear on the issue - the House has to cast votes on a prime minister tasked with forming a government.

In the past, a winning party might have formed the government, he said, explaining that the rules under the Constitution had changed to require the House vote to entrust the designated prime minister with government formation.

Some past governments had come into existence by a coalition deal forged by party leaders but this could no longer be the case, he said.

Under Thai political precedent, the party with a majority vote would have the first chance at forming the government, he said.

The government's formation was a step to be taken only after the House voted on the prime minister, he said.

The composition of the next government would emerge only after knowing who its leader would be and it was very difficult to anticipate the will of the 500 newly-elected MPs, he said.

Abhisit was speaking with a slight advantage, as the opposition Pheu Thai Party has yet to come up with an official candidate to challenge him. How members of the new House of Representatives react to Pheu Thai's final choice for prime minister could sway the outcome. A poor choice, or one that stirs up factional trouble within Pheu Thai, could boost Abhisit's leverage, especially if the balloting does not produce a landslide winner.

Abhisit urged the media to closely monitor and report on the actual campaigning and the platforms of the various parties instead of speculating on scenarios ahead of time.

In regard to concern that small parties might dominate the naming of the prime minister in case of a split vote, he said the aspirations of the 500 MPs would chart the political landscape.

"Anything is possible if MPs from major parties decide to vote with their counterparts from small parties," he said.

'Winning party should form govt'

Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said the winning party should have the mandate to form the next government, not the party that can muster majority support in the House, as Abhisit claims.

Abhisit and faction leader Newin Chidchob of Bhum Jai Thai Party might be trying to cling to power by denying Pheu Thai a victory, he said.

Pheu Thai MP Preecha Rengsomboonsuk said he believed Newin was destined for the opposition bench because every opinion survey shows popular sentiment in favour of Pheu Thai.

There was no justification in speculating that Pheu Thai would be denied a chance to lead the next government, he said.

Democrat Party spokesman Buranaj Smutharaks said his party leader Abhisit would fully cooperate with the Election Commission to bring about a free and fair poll. Candidates should not try to invoke the monarchy in their campaign speeches, he said.

-- The Nation 2011-05-02

[whybother]

Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said the winning party should have the mandate to form the next government, not the party that can muster majority support in the House, as Abhisit claims.

The "winning party" does not have a mandate to do anything if they do not get the support of the majority of MPs.

Without the support of the majority of MPs, they would not be able to pass any laws, they would not be able to pass any budgets, they would fail any censure motions.

Without the support of the majority of MPs, there couldn't be a functioning government.

[CosmicSurfer]

'Democracy' in Action.... Thai style!

CS

[whatsupdoc]

'Democracy' in Action.... Thai style!

CS

Care to elaborate?

Parties that together have a majority in parliament can form the government together. That's normal in any democracy isn't it?

[hammered]

That is how parliaments work. A PM name is put forward and the MPs vote. Usually it is accepted but if it isnt another name either from the same party or another one gets put forward. Usually these things get decided before the vote but not always.

The problem in Thailand is that it is all in a context of distrust, hatred and years of it and additionally in a context of a massive intra-elite power struggle and additionally in a context of massive inequality and additionally in a context of a very big upcoming change. It is complicated and difficult to see an outcome that will be acceptable to all the players who cant even agree on a set of rules beyond an election that it easy to see will be called foul whatever the outcome.

[CosmicSurfer]

'Democracy' in Action.... Thai style!

CS

Care to elaborate?

Parties that together have a majority in parliament can form the government together. That's normal in any democracy isn't it?

I will....

A Democratic government is one reflecting the will of the people... In the parliamentary system, the party given the right to form a government and claim the leadership reflected by the position of "Prime Minister" is the party that captures the most seats.... This can be either a "Majority government" when the 'winning' party has captured the 'majority' of seats.. or a 'Minority' government, when no party can claim the 'Majority'.

In the event of a 'Minority' government, the right to try and form a 'Majority' coalition falls to the party with the next highest quantity of seats won. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that is the lead party of the coalition... or the 'Parliamentary' Leader of the Majority party... Plain and simple.

(In a parliamentary system, such as Canada, where there is NO List system, there can be a case where the actual "Leader" of a Party has not won his/her own Seat and can not be the "Prime Minister" until a By-Election is called where the "Leader" can be elected as an MP... usually in a 'Safe' electoral district or Riding. In this situation, the Governing party would select one of their other senior members to act as "Parliamentary" leader and assume the Role of PM. In the event the actual leader won a by-election, then the Interim-PM would resign and the newly elected Leader would assume the position...)

In the event no 'Governing' Coalition can be assembled, a new election is called.

In no other democracy that I know of, is there ever a Prime Minister that is selected by people from another party, including MPs that are not in the coalition parties...

This is not a reflection of the Democratic will of the people voting to form a government composed of the majority of the seats in the parliament.

"Democracy Thai Style" is 'Democracy' in name only... By no other factor is Thailand a True 'Democracy'. Contrary to popular Belief... 'Democracy' is Not only 'One man - One vote", nor is it Only a "Free" Election... Simply allowing a 'Free' vote to create a government that is not truly representative and accountable to the people does not a 'Democracy' make; A "Democracy" that does not place the well-being of its citizens over all else is a 'Failed' democracy; A 'Democracy' where the Military and Police are not subservient and accountable to the people and refuse to take direction from the elected leadership is a totalitarian system; A 'Democracy' where Corruption trumps all and the 'Rule of Law' is ignored is a Criminal state...; A 'Democracy' where the Constitution is continuously abused and re-written to benefit and perpetuate a Failed System is "No Democracy" at all.

Under most definitions of Democracy, unfortunately Thailand fails the Test:

Democracy Definition (edited)

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

3. the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

4. the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Is this now clear enough?

CS

Edited May 2, 2011 by CosmicSurfer

[Arkady]

In no other democracy that I know of, is there ever a Prime Minister that is selected by people from another party, including MPs that are not in the coalition parties...

This is not a reflection of the Democratic will of the people voting to form a government composed of the majority of the seats in the parliament.

I think you have misunderstood this point. In all parliamentary systems based on the Westminster model, including Thailand, the prime minister is chosen by MPs of all parties in a parliamentary vote. The fact that the parties put up their leaders as candidates for job and that, the case of a coalition, a deal is cut before the vote, doesn't change this principle. Abhisit was just reiterating the constitutional rules to try to make the point that he believes the Democrats have an advantage in that their PM candidate is a known quantity. He obviously hopes that PT's lack of clarity over the leadership issue and lack of credible candidates with a track record in government will favour him. He is not saying there is going to be any change of procedure, although The Nation has implied this in its confusing report.

[whatsupdoc]

'Democracy' in Action.... Thai style!

CS

Care to elaborate?

Parties that together have a majority in parliament can form the government together. That's normal in any democracy isn't it?

I will....

A Democratic government is one reflecting the will of the people... In the parliamentary system, the party given the right to form a government and claim the leadership reflected by the position of "Prime Minister" is the party that captures the most seats.... This can be either a "Majority government" when the 'winning' party has captured the 'majority' of seats.. or a 'Minority' government, when no party can claim the 'Majority'.

In the event of a 'Minority' government, the right to try and form a 'Majority' coalition falls to the party with the next highest quantity of seats won. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that is the lead party of the coalition... or the 'Parliamentary' Leader of the Majority party... Plain and simple.

(In a parliamentary system, such as Canada, where there is NO List system, there can be a case where the actual "Leader" of a Party has not won his/her own Seat and can not be the "Prime Minister" until a By-Election is called where the "Leader" can be elected as an MP... usually in a 'Safe' electoral district or Riding. In this situation, the Governing party would select one of their other senior members to act as "Parliamentary" leader and assume the Role of PM. In the event the actual leader won a by-election, then the Interim-PM would resign and the newly elected Leader would assume the position...)

In the event no 'Governing' Coalition can be assembled, a new election is called.

In no other democracy that I know of, is there ever a Prime Minister that is selected by people from another party, including MPs that are not in the coalition parties...

This is not a reflection of the Democratic will of the people voting to form a government composed of the majority of the seats in the parliament.

"Democracy Thai Style" is 'Democracy' in name only... By no other factor is Thailand a True 'Democracy'. Contrary to popular Belief... 'Democracy' is Not only 'One man - One vote", nor is it Only a "Free" Election... Simply allowing a 'Free' vote to create a government that is not truly representative and accountable to the people does not a 'Democracy' make; A "Democracy" that does not place the well-being of its citizens over all else is a 'Failed' democracy; A 'Democracy' where the Military and Police are not subservient and accountable to the people and refuse to take direction from the elected leadership is a totalitarian system; A 'Democracy' where Corruption trumps all and the 'Rule of Law' is ignored is a Criminal state...; A 'Democracy' where the Constitution is continuously abused and re-written to benefit and perpetuate a Failed System is "No Democracy" at all.

Under most definitions of Democracy, unfortunately Thailand fails the Test:

Democracy Definition (edited)

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

3. the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

4. the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Is this now clear enough?

CS

In most democracies with a PM the parties that can and want to form a majority government will choose a PM themselves. Usually this will be the leader of the largest party in the coalition but it is possible to choose someone else (I think he/she doesn't even have to be a MP in some countries).

Apparently, the parliament in Thailand first decides on a candidate PM who then tries to form the government.

So the people vote for the MP's, who then vote for the PM, who then forms a government.

I still fail to understand what is not democratic about this.

And your description of a "True Democracy": well, I doubt if any country fits that description..... Which country has a truly representative and accountable parliament?? Thailand is by no means perfect (vote buying and parties with hardly any ideology or program) but it is still closer to a democracy than a dictatorship.

[jdinasia]

That is how parliaments work. A PM name is put forward and the MPs vote. Usually it is accepted but if it isnt another name either from the same party or another one gets put forward. Usually these things get decided before the vote but not always.

The problem in Thailand is that it is all in a context of distrust, hatred and years of it and additionally in a context of a massive intra-elite power struggle and additionally in a context of massive inequality and additionally in a context of a very big upcoming change. It is complicated and difficult to see an outcome that will be acceptable to all the players who cant even agree on a set of rules beyond an election that it easy to see will be called foul whatever the outcome.

Excellent post as usual, and it is good to see you back!

[DP25]

Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said the winning party should have the mandate to form the next government, not the party that can muster majority support in the House, as Abhisit claims.

There IS no "winning" party if none of them get over half the vote.

[animatic]

Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said the winning party should have the mandate to form the next government, not the party that can muster majority support in the House, as Abhisit claims.

There IS no "winning" party if none of them get over half the vote.

Precisely the issue. no 251 MP seats no majority.

So then ALL the MPS vote, the biggest minority gets to puts up their PM choice. and he or she gets voted yea nay. But they also must get 251 or more votes. Then the next largest minority puts up their candidate for Yea Nay vote.

Which ever gest over 251 first becomes PM and formes a government.

If he can NOT form a government it returns to the MPS for a replacement PM vote, and the hope that the new PM can make a government.

Edited May 2, 2011 by animatic

[Roadman]

Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said the winning party should have the mandate to form the next government, not the party that can muster majority support in the House, as Abhisit claims.

The "winning party" does not have a mandate to do anything if they do not get the support of the majority of MPs.

Without the support of the majority of MPs, they would not be able to pass any laws, they would not be able to pass any budgets, they would fail any censure motions.

Without the support of the majority of MPs, there couldn't be a functioning government.

The Pheu Thai Khwai getting in their early "the election was rigged" validations for Burning Bangkok Part II.

[Crushdepth]

In the parliamentary system, the party given the right to form a government and claim the leadership reflected by the position of "Prime Minister" is the party that captures the most seats....

Not quite true. The government is formed when someone can demonstrate - to the head of state - that they have the support of enough *members* to form the government. Theoretically, it does not matter what parties those people belong to. In practice it usually works out the way you said but that's a convention of political parties and not a right.

In no other democracy that I know of, is there ever a Prime Minister that is selected by people from another party, including MPs that are not in the coalition parties...

The present Australian Prime Minister was selected (over the present opposition leader) by several independents who hold the balance of power and are not (formally) part of the coalition.

[whybother]

I will....

A Democratic government is one reflecting the will of the people... In the parliamentary system, the party given the right to form a government and claim the leadership reflected by the position of "Prime Minister" is the party that captures the most seats.... This can be either a "Majority government" when the 'winning' party has captured the 'majority' of seats.. or a 'Minority' government, when no party can claim the 'Majority'.

In the event of a 'Minority' government, the right to try and form a 'Majority' coalition falls to the party with the next highest quantity of seats won. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that is the lead party of the coalition... or the 'Parliamentary' Leader of the Majority party... Plain and simple.

(In a parliamentary system, such as Canada, where there is NO List system, there can be a case where the actual "Leader" of a Party has not won his/her own Seat and can not be the "Prime Minister" until a By-Election is called where the "Leader" can be elected as an MP... usually in a 'Safe' electoral district or Riding. In this situation, the Governing party would select one of their other senior members to act as "Parliamentary" leader and assume the Role of PM. In the event the actual leader won a by-election, then the Interim-PM would resign and the newly elected Leader would assume the position...)

In the event no 'Governing' Coalition can be assembled, a new election is called.

In no other democracy that I know of, is there ever a Prime Minister that is selected by people from another party, including MPs that are not in the coalition parties...

This is not a reflection of the Democratic will of the people voting to form a government composed of the majority of the seats in the parliament.

"Democracy Thai Style" is 'Democracy' in name only... By no other factor is Thailand a True 'Democracy'. Contrary to popular Belief... 'Democracy' is Not only 'One man - One vote", nor is it Only a "Free" Election... Simply allowing a 'Free' vote to create a government that is not truly representative and accountable to the people does not a 'Democracy' make; A "Democracy" that does not place the well-being of its citizens over all else is a 'Failed' democracy; A 'Democracy' where the Military and Police are not subservient and accountable to the people and refuse to take direction from the elected leadership is a totalitarian system; A 'Democracy' where Corruption trumps all and the 'Rule of Law' is ignored is a Criminal state...; A 'Democracy' where the Constitution is continuously abused and re-written to benefit and perpetuate a Failed System is "No Democracy" at all.

Under most definitions of Democracy, unfortunately Thailand fails the Test:

Democracy Definition (edited)

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

3. the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

4. the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Is this now clear enough?

CS

In Summary:

1) the party with the majority of seats gets to form government.

2) if no party gets a majority, the party with the most seats has the right to try to form a coalition government with other parties.

2a) if they fail, the next largest party has the right to try to form a coalition government.

3) if no party or coalition of parties can form government, a new election is called.

The PM could come from a smaller party if that was a condition for a number of parties to form a coalition government.