The Senate question is not totally ideological: Thai opinion

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
The Senate question is not totally ideological
Tulsathit Taptim

BANGKOK: -- People change every five or six years, they say, and that's why close friends drift sometimes apart. Seeing the Democrats led by Abhisit Vejjajiva mounting a staunch defence of the concept of appointing or selecting senators rather than electing them may help reinforce the "change" theory. It's clear, on the record, that a few years ago he didn't like the idea of senatorial appointees.

Thailand has been grappling with this Senate issue for ages. The debate has evolved with time and been influenced largely by changing political realities, but the ultimate question remains the same: Should Thai democracy be "guided" or not? A few days ago, Parliament tried to deal with the puzzle and almost tore itself apart in the process.

It's not just Abhisit. A lot of Democrats used to stand on the other side. Appointing senators to "look after" elected representatives of the people never sounds democratically healthy. Democracy, in theory, needs to rise and fall on its own terms. "Guided" democracy is probably only as good as dictatorship with its hair combed.

But democratic principles in Thailand are what both sides of the political divide deem them to be; thus the vociferous acrimony in Parliament. The debate demonstrated anything but a sincere effort to protect true values of democracy. The Democrats rocked the boat, but they did so claiming that the ruling Pheu Thai Party is stretching its electoral mandate to dangerously extreme limits. Which political party is courting trouble - which could snowball to the point of encouraging a new round of military opportunism? This question itself is highly divisive.

"How can you be democratic by having a non-elected chamber of Parliament look over the shoulders of an elected one, in addition to giving its appointees formidable impeachment power?" one side asks.

"Where are the checks and balances that are necessary in every democracy if senators have to come under the wing of political parties?" the other side shoots back.

Both camps have a point. Pheu Thai insists that democracy is, essentially, a system of implementing the will of the people expressed through elections. The ruling party argues that it won the last poll, so that should be the end of the story. The election, they say, was actually won on several platforms including a promise to repeal "the coup legacy" left in the 2007 Constitution.

Hitting back, the Democrats ask Pheu Thai what the three pillars of democracy are. Democrat debaters have tried to portray the charter amendment bill - that would revert back to a direct election of the Senate - as a thinly veiled attempt by Pheu Thai to completely dominate Parliament after having won executive power. With the legislature and executive branch under absolute political control, the judiciary would become a democratic pillar under siege, the Democrats say. No democracy can survive with that kind of imbalance, they insist.

Thailand's political crisis has defied democratic theories, written new lessons and encouraged soul-searching. The recent showdown in Parliament must have undermined a lot of people's faith in their political ideals, but the bright side is that everyone was given the opportunity to keep thinking and questioning. While Pheu Thai should be commended for trying to get its way through parliamentary steps, it has tested the limits of the term "electoral mandate". While the Democrats have caused exasperation with their almost no-holds-barred delaying tactics, they did offer food for thought when they really started debating.

The pros and cons of an appointed or elected Senate have not quite changed. It's the feelings toward the concept that have gone through transformation. Maybe it's part of the process of growing old, or maybe new experiences make us discard some old principles. Many years back, everyone turned to the US when they wanted support in opposing so-called internal security acts, which seemed to be very politically incorrect. Terrorism has changed everything. Yet the most glaring example of an ideological switch in Parliament last week was probably not Abhisit, but the daughter of slain red-shirt militant chief Kattiya Sawasdiphol.

Pheu Thai MP Kattiyaa Sawasdiphol (who shares her father's name) used to be quite active on the opposite side of the red camp. Her father's assassination drove her to the other end. If he had not been killed, she would not have been there in Parliament defending the concept of elected senators.

Ideology is supposed to be unwavering, but feelings fade and die. Which one of them is dictating Thai politics? Under other circumstances, Abhisit and Kattiyaa may have switched sides. He could have been fighting "military dictators" and she could have been lashing out at "parliamentary tyrants". Ideology can be influential, but it will give in to real experiences most of the times. After all, it's the latter that make people change.

-- The Nation 2013-08-28

[chainarong]

No matter where you are from the upper house or senate or whatever you like to call it must be elected by the people, this is generally a house of review and keeps the lower house in line, something that Thailand needs, to appoint persons to this area of government can lead nepotism, jobs for the boys etc etc, to find this kind of political goings on, it come as no surprise, it could only happen in Thailand

[RickeyParkany]

BANGKOK: -- People change every five or six years, they say, and that's why close friends drift sometimes apart. Seeing the Democrats led by Abhisit Vejjajiva mounting a staunch defence of the concept of appointing or selecting senators rather than electing them may help reinforce the "change" theory. It's clear, on the record, that a few years ago he didn't like the idea of senatorial appointees.

Sorry! we don't have to cite some obtuse Theory of Change to comprehend this morally challenged miscreant, Abhisit's, apparent inconsistencies...there is a bold consistency of hypocrisy that explains it all so much more succinctly...

...Occam's razor: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity." ;-} rap.

[robertson468]

The Upper House in the UK, The House of Lords, is appointed and not elected and works exceptionally well, as does the Lower House. Why not take a leaf out of their well tried and tested book, which has been in existence for hundreds of years. Oh, sorry that's a "farang" thing and could not possibly be popular with this infantile democracy(?).

[Thai at Heart]

The Upper House in the UK, The House of Lords, is appointed and not elected and works exceptionally well, as does the Lower House. Why not take a leaf out of their well tried and tested book, which has been in existence for hundreds of years. Oh, sorry that's a "farang" thing and could not possibly be popular with this infantile democracy(?).

Farangs don't understand thainess....

[khunken]

Whether people have changed their mind or not is irrelevant. The whole point is 'what is the purpose of a second chamber?'. It should be a check - not a block - on the lower house.

Thaksin controlled PTP thinks it should just be an extension of the lower house which it became when he was in power. This is not a democratic principle.

The Democrats - as far as I can tell - are saying it should be part elected & part appointed, similar to what it is now. This is not undemocratic but certainly not perfect.

Thailand is really only a part-democratic country. For example no democracy should be able to accomodate a convicted fugitive-led government & I don't know of any precedent for this - anywhere.

I don't think that the country is ready for a fully-elected Senate as there is unlikely to be any real blockage of political party involvement in the process. I think it should be elected by a number of groups within the country, such as head teachers, university dons, judges & doctors.

The election should be on a different timescale to general elections.

[timewilltell]

The problem with democracy is that sweet talking, misguided, corrupt, selfish but otherwise less than stellar brain boxes are elected by the most driven and largest sections of society. It is a great idea in theory except that the biggest sections of society tend to be those with the worst education and the poorest jobs. That is how society is - a few clever people in various shapes or forms who manage and lead the rest of the vast swathes of the uneducated masses.

Thus the elected representatives are not elected on grounds of reasoning much above 'Whats in it for me right now?'. That rarely leads goth most altruistic set of MP's but rather those that can lie the best about what they can 'Give' at the expense of the country. Such a system will never lead to the best set of candidates from the viewpoint of what is best for the country because the masses cannot reason what is best for the country either from slack of education or from a personality of basic personal and immediate need satisfaction or an inability to reason other than at the most base level and very low level of understanding even of the facts and consequences of electing into power someone with a certain policy aim.

The elected rabble can push forward with its populist policies but some of these will be ill thought thought through and incredibly damaging to the country such as the rice scheme. Thus the upper house can debate and return such bills amended to temper unrestrained idiocy and propose less damaging amendments. For this the upper house will ideally be populated by better educated, more intelligent and successful people who can reason more effectively, have better foresight and more experience. Itis difficult to have such people elected by the masses in the same way since you will end up with the same type of people as the MPs elected which does not serve the purpose, especially where the electorate are content to vote for whoever gives the the most 'tip' for voting. That system will be wholly open to the 'buying' of power which is exactly what PTP is after. Having creamed off billions it is in place to buy absolute power - that does not serve democracy!

[CWMcMurray]

So looks like Brits believe that the correct way is to appoint the upper house and Americans believe they should be elected...

After all that's how it's always been done in their respective countries, so that's the only correct answer

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

[ABCer]

So looks like Brits believe that the correct way is to appoint the upper house and Americans believe they should be elected...

After all that's how it's always been done in their respective countries, so that's the only correct answer

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

Yes, true. And it is very difficult to say which way is more advantageous for the country.

GB has a long established 'culture of National Pride and gentlemanship'. (Not without exceptions). The advantage seems to be in appointing the more suitable, respectable and educated people.

US have a more 'democratic' way of elections. Which quite often leads to demagogues getting the upper hand. Their election campaigns are costly sometimes leading to post-election corruption to recoup the costs. Not mentioning that their elections are not direct.

This is 'generally speaking'. But in Thai context the greatest fallacy of Democracy lies in their 'historical culture', uneducated majority, tradition of nepotism, etc. A very difficult issue to which I know not ready answers.

Basically, I'm glad it's not my problem.