Thai talk: When the Senate undermines checks and balances

[webfact]

THAI TALK
When the Senate undermines checks and balances
Suthichai Yoon
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The National Election Commission (NEC) set the target for voter turnout in last Sunday's Senate election at 70 per cent. The actual turnout was 42.5 per cent. The previous election in 2008 registered a turnout of 55.6 per cent.

What's worse, the number of Bangkokians who showed up to cast their ballots amounted to only 28 per cent.

The number of "no vote" ballots exceeded 2.2 million, or about 11.8 per cent, while the number of spoiled ballots was 5.15 per cent (960,000).

How does one explain such deplorable apathy towards the election? You can blame the ongoing political chaos. You can say that some of the candidates were little known. You can even cite the NEC's lack of public promotion for the shockingly low interest.

Doesn't the Thai public realise that senators play a vital role in the national political process? Perhaps not all voters are aware of the fact, but most people certainly have some inkling that the upper House may be able to help break the political deadlock. But that could only happen if voters were certain that those elected to the Senate were "independent" enough to work out a political solution for the country.

That, alas, isn't the case. The fact that the turnout was so disappointingly low stemmed from one very important reason: The voters don't believe the senators can play the role specified for them in the Constitution: To serve as checks and balances against the House of Representatives. Worse, most believe that MPs of the lower House can influence members of the Senate because the senators relied on their political parties' support to get elected.

When the results of the Sunday's Senate election were announced, it was clear that the same pattern as that seen in the lower House elections had emerged: The North and Northeast were captured mostly by pro-government candidates while the South went the other way. One local newspaper ran a huge front-page headline the following morning: "Thaksin Seizes Senate".

Rightly or wrongly, the story reflects what quite a few political analysts believe to be the case.

Senators aren't supposed to be "politically affiliated". That's what the charter says. The reality is different. With so many of the elected senators closely associated one way or the other with the existing political parties, the battle that has been fought in the lower House and on the streets will break out in the upper House yet again.

Senators' duties as stipulated by the Constitution are to endorse those nominated to such important agencies as the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Constitutional Court and a host of other "independent bodies" with highly influential roles to play to keep the executive branch from exercising excessive power.

But experience in the past few years has confirmed the worst suspicions. None of the attempted impeachments against senior politicians in Parliament and the Cabinet has succeeded. For one thing, the Constitution requires agreement from three-fifths of the total 150 senators to pass an impeachment motion. That means 90 of the 150 senators must stand united to pass the proposed move. That has never happened and won't do so any time soon.

That means the upper House simply isn't in a position to throw out corrupt politicians. Neither can it serve as a check-and-balance mechanism against political abuse. On the contrary, it is clear that in some cases, the senators closely affiliated to the powers-that-be have served to help whitewash corrupt politicians and political appointees.

Recent history stands witness to this ugly fact. When the Pheu Thai Party pushed through the controversial all-embracing amnesty bill that would have pardoned even the most corrupt politicians, present and past, the Senate, dominated by pro-government members, promptly rushed the draft legislation through, sparking the massive street demonstrations that transformed into the People's Democratic Reform Council (PDRC) movement.

Proper checks and balances means that if you get 51 per cent of the vote, you don't get your way 100 per cent of the time. That, however, doesn't seem to be the guiding principle of the ruling party.


-- The Nation 2014-04-03

[pmugghc]

It's a sad state of affairs. It would have been worse with the proposed all-elected senate. Better to abolish it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[binjalin]

people have no faith in a system of part "appointed' and part "elected" senators coming from a constitution that was 'Hobson's Choice' as the result of a coup

of the course The Nation's unbiased "it's all the governments fault" is daily 'grist for the yellow mill'

[notmyself]

It's a sad state of affairs. It would have been worse with the proposed all-elected senate. Better to abolish it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Abolish the only thing which stopped Thailand becoming a dictatorship?

[Siripon]

This is exactly why an elected Senate doesn't work in Thailand. Simply a rubber stamp for politicians, not a check and balance.

[chainarong]

Possibly Thailand , after reading this little how do you do is in trouble, to remove the checks and balances by stacking the senate with your own supporters is rubber stamping any request from the house of reps, this happened in Australia way back, the result , the people never forgot and they always go for a few independents in the senate to balance the power, the Thai people voted with their feet , probably sick in tired of the whole shebang, however in this case they should have hammered home to the Reps that the people understand , to late now , they might live to regret their choices in Democratic voting.

[pmugghc]

It's a sad state of affairs. It would have been worse with the proposed all-elected senate. Better to abolish it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Abolish the only thing which stopped Thailand becoming a dictatorship?

No, what I meant is an all elected senate would just be a useless rubberstamp, better to abolish it in that case.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[BillyBobThai]

With the risk of loosing face always a problem here in Thailand, it seems that might an efective way to control them. As it shows here in the picture, you need to start early.

[Eric Loh]

_{The polarization of the upper house is a reflection of the political division of the country. The partisan judiciary and independent agencies deepen the senators division with their idiosyneratic verdict. The political struggle forces people to take sides and that include the upper house. If we have a fair and just judiciary, independent agencies taking up their responsibilities without any bias and all political parties chosing election campaigning instead of undemocratic means to form the government; there will be less upper house tension and division. Then better non partisan senators can perform their rightful role.}

[renaissanc]

If Thaksin's government can avoid falling now, and there are elections, which he can win with the feudalistic structures he has perfected, and then afterwards he stacks the courts with his people, his victory will be complete, and Thailand will soar to No. 1 in the world as the most corrupt country. Even Syria and Cambodia will look up to him in dismay. What a proud legacy for the Shinawatra clan, and how wealthy it will become!

Having said this, he won't succeed.

[Nickymaster]

It's a sad state of affairs. It would have been worse with the proposed all-elected senate. Better to abolish it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Abolish the only thing which stopped Thailand becoming a dictatorship?

Correct.

But luckily Thaksin still cannot control the army (remember he tried hard to "make a deal" with the army) / http://asiamedia.lmu.edu/2013/07/17/thailand-guilty-until-proven-innocent/. Luckily it didn't work otherwise we would have had another Cambodia. Hun Sen must be laughing at Thaksin for not having full control over Thailand.

[virtualtraveller]

The salient point, not made here, is that the election of senators is not very democratic. It's not proportional representation. 8 million people in Bangkok (the educated 8 million) get to choose 1 senator, the collective 8 million of the Northern provinces get to choose 20 senators. Most of them are allied to Thaksin. Not very democratic is it?

[fstarbkk]

"Doesn't the Thai public realise that senators play a vital role in the national political process?"

Answer: NO.

Also I'm pretty sure that most people here couldn't name the governor of their province. They may have figured out who the prime minister is by now. But I doubt most could describe the PM's principal duties (including said PM).

The political ignorance and indifference in this country is epic and staggering. That's one big reason why the power elite (regardless of color) can manipulate the masses so easily and make a farce out of the concept of democracy.

[WoopyDoo]

deleted

Edited April 3, 2014 by WoopyDoo

[Scamper]

" Proper checks and balances means that if you get 51 per cent of the vote, you don't get your way 100 per cent of the time. That, however, doesn't seem to be the guiding principle of the ruling party. "

Indeed it doesn't. In fact, Pheu Thai believed that if you got 48.41 % of the vote, that meant you could get what you wanted 100 % of the time. And they had an ambitious agenda - full of corruption, profiteering, graft - and balanced that with trying to change the charter to cement their hand, as well as to try to exert control over the legal process and the " revision " of the checks and balances of the independent agencies. That's really what it came down to. They felt a mandate meant they could pursue any manner of unconstitutional behavior - because the people had given their stamp of approval. Most of Pheu Thai and most of Pheu Thai's supporters still believe that. It's not just obstinacy. They truly do believe that.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Scamper

[notmyself]

It's a sad state of affairs. It would have been worse with the proposed all-elected senate. Better to abolish it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Abolish the only thing which stopped Thailand becoming a dictatorship?

No, what I meant is an all elected senate would just be a useless rubberstamp, better to abolish it in that case.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Sorry, I agree as it would serve no purpose.