Pheu Thai: Abhisit's political reform roadmap is unconstitutional

[MaiChai]

Didnt Yingluck have a fast track to MP and then PM?

[channil]

Since our Oxford-educated former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has spent several weeks coming up with his so-called “compromise” roadmap for our country, let me spend several minutes on a 10-point “reform” package of my own. Hopefully mine doesn’t come out equally illegal, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. Here goes:

1) All political parties, including the Democrats, publically pledge to participate in the July 20 general elections and honor the other nine points as stated below. Representatives from other players in the political arena (the military, the police, the judiciary, the PDRC, the UDD, etc.) are also asked to publically pledge to honor the other nine points as stated below.

2) The PDRC, UDD, and other political pressure groups cease their protests immediately.

3) The caretaker government, led by Acting PM Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisal, remains in place until a new government is formed after the general elections.

4) The entire Shinawatra family (including their in-laws) publically pledges not to hold any political positions in Thailand for the next five years.

5) After the July 20 general elections, the parties represented in the new House of Representatives will form a “national government” led by a grand coalition of Pheu Thai and the Democrats. The primary mandate of this government would be to ensure smooth political reform.

6) The party which wins the “Party List” national proportional vote will nominate the Prime Minister as well as the 1st Deputy Prime Minister. The second-placed, third-placed, fourth-placed, and fifth-placed parties will nominate the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Deputy Prime Ministers, respectively. (Or we can have six if Chuwit wants to be a Deputy Prime Minister.)

7) The remaining Minister positions will be split by Ministry (Minister and Deputy Minister goes together). Quotas for ministries will be assigned based on the “Party List” national proportional vote. A “draft pick” system will be used, with the winning party having the first pick, the second-placed party having the second pick, and so on until all ministries are assigned. The cabinet will ensure the stability of the country during this transition period and will not engage in any “drastic” policies or measures. It will facilitate and assist with the reform process.

8) The House of Representatives, with the cooperation of the Senate, will amend Section 291, Section 165 (or, if necessary, also Section 68) of the current constitution, to allow for constitutional replacement and/or amendment via a democratic constitutional drafting assembly followed by a referendum. A reform council or, more accurately, a constitutional drafting assembly will be legitimately set up by the new government. The structure and makeup of the assembly must be democratic in nature, following the precedence set in the drafting of the 1997 “People’s Constitution”. However, to address the Democrats’ legitimate concerns about first-past-the-post, the top two candidates from each constituency will be elected to this assembly (voters may only vote for one candidate). This way the “minority” interests in each constituency will still be represented. This will provide a constitutional drafting assembly of 375 (constituencies) x 2 = 750.

9) The constitutional drafting assembly is to complete its reform within 9 months. A new proposed constitution will have been drafted within this time. The new proposed constitution will then be sent to a nationwide referendum against the 2007 Constitution. Both Pheu Thai and the Democrats publically pledge to back four key reform issues. One, ensuring that all aspects of the United Nations Declarations of Human Rights is enshrined in the new constitution above all other laws and institutions. Two, addressing the Democrats’ concerns over first-past-the-post by pushing for a change in the electoral system from a predominantly first-past-the-post model to a mixed-member proportional representation model (most famously used in Germany). This would ensure representative proportionality while allowing for the local accountability of constituencies. Three, to ensure stricter and clearer regulations regarding corruption, lobbying, and conflict of interest. Four, to reform the judicial system (including oversight, appointments, powers) to be more democratic, accountable, and unambiguous.

10) If the current 2007 Constitution wins, the Prime Minister will immediately dissolve the House of Representatives, and all parties will participate in competitive elections under the current rules (back to normalcy). If the new constitution wins, Parliament will engage in a “clean up” of lower laws and regulations to ensure that they comply with the stipulations of the new constitution. This will take additional time but will be complete within another 9 months. Once this is complete, the Prime Minister will dissolve the House to pave way for competitive elections under the new “post-reform” constitution.

[BlueNoseCodger]

Since our Oxford-educated former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has spent several weeks coming up with his so-called “compromise” roadmap for our country, let me spend several minutes on a 10-point “reform” package of my own. Hopefully mine doesn’t come out equally illegal, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. Here goes:

1) All political parties, including the Democrats, publically pledge to participate in the July 20 general elections and honor the other nine points as stated below. Representatives from other players in the political arena (the military, the police, the judiciary, the PDRC, the UDD, etc.) are also asked to publically pledge to honor the other nine points as stated below.

2) The PDRC, UDD, and other political pressure groups cease their protests immediately.

3) The caretaker government, led by Acting PM Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisal, remains in place until a new government is formed after the general elections.

4) The entire Shinawatra family (including their in-laws) publically pledges not to hold any political positions in Thailand for the next five years.

5) After the July 20 general elections, the parties represented in the new House of Representatives will form a “national government” led by a grand coalition of Pheu Thai and the Democrats. The primary mandate of this government would be to ensure smooth political reform.

6) The party which wins the “Party List” national proportional vote will nominate the Prime Minister as well as the 1st Deputy Prime Minister. The second-placed, third-placed, fourth-placed, and fifth-placed parties will nominate the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Deputy Prime Ministers, respectively. (Or we can have six if Chuwit wants to be a Deputy Prime Minister.)

7) The remaining Minister positions will be split by Ministry (Minister and Deputy Minister goes together). Quotas for ministries will be assigned based on the “Party List” national proportional vote. A “draft pick” system will be used, with the winning party having the first pick, the second-placed party having the second pick, and so on until all ministries are assigned. The cabinet will ensure the stability of the country during this transition period and will not engage in any “drastic” policies or measures. It will facilitate and assist with the reform process.

8) The House of Representatives, with the cooperation of the Senate, will amend Section 291, Section 165 (or, if necessary, also Section 68) of the current constitution, to allow for constitutional replacement and/or amendment via a democratic constitutional drafting assembly followed by a referendum. A reform council or, more accurately, a constitutional drafting assembly will be legitimately set up by the new government. The structure and makeup of the assembly must be democratic in nature, following the precedence set in the drafting of the 1997 “People’s Constitution”. However, to address the Democrats’ legitimate concerns about first-past-the-post, the top two candidates from each constituency will be elected to this assembly (voters may only vote for one candidate). This way the “minority” interests in each constituency will still be represented. This will provide a constitutional drafting assembly of 375 (constituencies) x 2 = 750.

9) The constitutional drafting assembly is to complete its reform within 9 months. A new proposed constitution will have been drafted within this time. The new proposed constitution will then be sent to a nationwide referendum against the 2007 Constitution. Both Pheu Thai and the Democrats publically pledge to back four key reform issues. One, ensuring that all aspects of the United Nations Declarations of Human Rights is enshrined in the new constitution above all other laws and institutions. Two, addressing the Democrats’ concerns over first-past-the-post by pushing for a change in the electoral system from a predominantly first-past-the-post model to a mixed-member proportional representation model (most famously used in Germany). This would ensure representative proportionality while allowing for the local accountability of constituencies. Three, to ensure stricter and clearer regulations regarding corruption, lobbying, and conflict of interest. Four, to reform the judicial system (including oversight, appointments, powers) to be more democratic, accountable, and unambiguous.

10) If the current 2007 Constitution wins, the Prime Minister will immediately dissolve the House of Representatives, and all parties will participate in competitive elections under the current rules (back to normalcy). If the new constitution wins, Parliament will engage in a “clean up” of lower laws and regulations to ensure that they comply with the stipulations of the new constitution. This will take additional time but will be complete within another 9 months. Once this is complete, the Prime Minister will dissolve the House to pave way for competitive elections under the new “post-reform” constitution.

Silly, if the voters don't give Abhisit power, then why would the elected government give him power in a "coalition" government. You would be going against the voters wishes. Part of voting is to vote in the guy you want, and vote out the guy you don't want. Often the biggest part is the second part.

Likewise, people love the Shins, which is why they put a Shinawatra as the head of the party. Who are you to say they can't vote for the candidate they want?

6) would be nuts. They'd simply spend most of their time in-fighting to kick out the PM to become the next in line for power. A government in constant war cannot run the country.

7) No, ministers need to work together, not constantly sabotage each other. That would be a disaster. They'd block each others projects for partisan reasons.

8) Lots of words, ultimately the only ones that matter are "the top two candidates from each constituency will be elected to this assembly (voters may only vote for one candidate)" which is just a way of ensuring the loser gets a vote equal to the winner, regardless of the wishes of the voters.

e.g. Voters: 85% Yingluk / 10% Abhisit / 5% Chewit, result 1 vote for Yingluk, 1 vote for Abhisit. Voters wishes ignored. Loser gets equal vote as winner, even though he got a tiny fraction of the support. The voters cannot vote out the loser, only minor third party candidates can be voted out.

9) So your rigged reform committee of 8) would then have to be accepted? And you don't trust the rigged system you proposed to give you the result you want, so instead add preconditions on how it would modify the constitution? Get stuffed.

Your proposal is designed to create a weak elected house, when the corruption problem lies in the unelected Senate and the independent agencies it appoints. The last change you made was "the party list" system which meant people voting twice, and the possibility of splitting those votes, creating a weakened government, that would let you rule by dividing it.

First past the post works across the world, and the problem you face is the electability of your numpty, Abhisit. He's completely unelectable, and because your party doesn't get to choose its leader, even after losing 2 elections and boycotting 1, you still chose him to lead you to inevitable defeat or boycott.

Don't be idiots, choose an electable leader. Yingluk is available, why not try to hire her?! See, because if you had a decent leader with broad appeal, then everything becomes possible.

Edited May 12, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[channil]

Since our Oxford-educated former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has spent several weeks coming up with his so-called “compromise” roadmap for our country, let me spend several minutes on a 10-point “reform” package of my own. Hopefully mine doesn’t come out equally illegal, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. Here goes:

1) All political parties, including the Democrats, publically pledge to participate in the July 20 general elections and honor the other nine points as stated below. Representatives from other players in the political arena (the military, the police, the judiciary, the PDRC, the UDD, etc.) are also asked to publically pledge to honor the other nine points as stated below.

2) The PDRC, UDD, and other political pressure groups cease their protests immediately.

3) The caretaker government, led by Acting PM Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisal, remains in place until a new government is formed after the general elections.

4) The entire Shinawatra family (including their in-laws) publically pledges not to hold any political positions in Thailand for the next five years.

5) After the July 20 general elections, the parties represented in the new House of Representatives will form a “national government” led by a grand coalition of Pheu Thai and the Democrats. The primary mandate of this government would be to ensure smooth political reform.

6) The party which wins the “Party List” national proportional vote will nominate the Prime Minister as well as the 1st Deputy Prime Minister. The second-placed, third-placed, fourth-placed, and fifth-placed parties will nominate the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Deputy Prime Ministers, respectively. (Or we can have six if Chuwit wants to be a Deputy Prime Minister.)

7) The remaining Minister positions will be split by Ministry (Minister and Deputy Minister goes together). Quotas for ministries will be assigned based on the “Party List” national proportional vote. A “draft pick” system will be used, with the winning party having the first pick, the second-placed party having the second pick, and so on until all ministries are assigned. The cabinet will ensure the stability of the country during this transition period and will not engage in any “drastic” policies or measures. It will facilitate and assist with the reform process.

8) The House of Representatives, with the cooperation of the Senate, will amend Section 291, Section 165 (or, if necessary, also Section 68) of the current constitution, to allow for constitutional replacement and/or amendment via a democratic constitutional drafting assembly followed by a referendum. A reform council or, more accurately, a constitutional drafting assembly will be legitimately set up by the new government. The structure and makeup of the assembly must be democratic in nature, following the precedence set in the drafting of the 1997 “People’s Constitution”. However, to address the Democrats’ legitimate concerns about first-past-the-post, the top two candidates from each constituency will be elected to this assembly (voters may only vote for one candidate). This way the “minority” interests in each constituency will still be represented. This will provide a constitutional drafting assembly of 375 (constituencies) x 2 = 750.

9) The constitutional drafting assembly is to complete its reform within 9 months. A new proposed constitution will have been drafted within this time. The new proposed constitution will then be sent to a nationwide referendum against the 2007 Constitution. Both Pheu Thai and the Democrats publically pledge to back four key reform issues. One, ensuring that all aspects of the United Nations Declarations of Human Rights is enshrined in the new constitution above all other laws and institutions. Two, addressing the Democrats’ concerns over first-past-the-post by pushing for a change in the electoral system from a predominantly first-past-the-post model to a mixed-member proportional representation model (most famously used in Germany). This would ensure representative proportionality while allowing for the local accountability of constituencies. Three, to ensure stricter and clearer regulations regarding corruption, lobbying, and conflict of interest. Four, to reform the judicial system (including oversight, appointments, powers) to be more democratic, accountable, and unambiguous.

10) If the current 2007 Constitution wins, the Prime Minister will immediately dissolve the House of Representatives, and all parties will participate in competitive elections under the current rules (back to normalcy). If the new constitution wins, Parliament will engage in a “clean up” of lower laws and regulations to ensure that they comply with the stipulations of the new constitution. This will take additional time but will be complete within another 9 months. Once this is complete, the Prime Minister will dissolve the House to pave way for competitive elections under the new “post-reform” constitution.

Silly, if the voters don't give Abhisit power, then why would the elected government give him power in a "coalition" government. You would be going against the voters wishes. Part of voting is to vote in the guy you want, and vote out the guy you don't want. Often the biggest part is the second part.

Likewise, people love the Shins, which is why they put a Shinawatra as the head of the party. Who are you to say they can't vote for the candidate they want?

6) would be nuts. They'd simply spend most of their time in-fighting to kick out the PM to become the next in line for power. A government in constant war cannot run the country.

7) No, ministers need to work together, not constantly sabotage each other. That would be a disaster. They'd block each others projects for partisan reasons.

8) Lots of words, ultimately the only ones that matter are "the top two candidates from each constituency will be elected to this assembly (voters may only vote for one candidate)" which is just a way of ensuring the loser gets a vote equal to the winner, regardless of the wishes of the voters.

e.g. Voters: 85% Yingluk / 10% Abhisit / 5% Chewit, result 1 vote for Yingluk, 1 vote for Abhisit. Voters wishes ignored. Loser gets equal vote as winner, even though he got a tiny fraction of the support. The voters cannot vote out the loser, only minor third party candidates can be voted out.

9) So your rigged reform committee of 8) would then have to be accepted? And you don't trust the rigged system you proposed to give you the result you want, so instead add preconditions on how it would modify the constitution? Get stuffed.

Your proposal is designed to create a weak elected house, when the corruption problem lies in the unelected Senate and the independent agencies it appoints. The last change you made was "the party list" system which meant people voting twice, and the possibility of splitting those votes, creating a weakened government, that would let you rule by dividing it.

First past the post works across the world, and the problem you face is the electability of your numpty, Abhisit. He's completely unelectable, and because your party doesn't get to choose its leader, even after losing 2 elections and boycotting 1, you still chose him to lead you to inevitable defeat or boycott.

Don't be idiots, choose an electable leader. Yingluk is available, why not try to hire her?! See, because if you had a decent leader with broad appeal, then everything becomes possible.

Before we discuss things further, it might be useful for you to know that I am a devoted supporter of the Pheu Thai Party, a liberal, an anti-Establishment proponent, and someone who would, like you, love for there to be elections and a return to normalcy immediately. I have made my pro-democracy opinions known in public numerous times, so no, Abhisit is not "my numpty." However, we must propose something that is acceptable to the ammarts and conservatives. As a realist, I believe that simply demanding elections as soon as possible will not solve the deadlock (even though we are philosophically or foundationally "in the right"). We need to propose something that is a true compromise and that addresses some of (albeit few) legitimate concerns from the "other side". In a more Machiavellian sense, we simply need to "find a way down" for them. You can stand your idealist ground, but it will accomplish nothing (or achieve victory at a very high cost).

I totally agree with you that a democratic political system should allow people to vote in or out whomever they wish. The grand coalition / national government I am proposing is only temporary (12-18), and the power to dissolve Parliament and call new elections, should the Dems not honor their word, would still be in the hands of Pheu Thai. However, in times of crisis or chaos, it is not unseen (see the Monti cabinet), for a non-partisan deal to be brokered and a temporary government to hold things together. Again both sides should do this voluntarily, so don't say I'm telling people what to do; it is just a suggestion to get out of this mess.

4) I'm suggesting the Shin break only as a sign of good will from our side, voluntarily. Obviously they will still be influential behind the scenes both in terms of political strategy and policy. I think Pheu Thai does need an image change so that it is not seen as the political machine of the Shinawatra family. It would do us good in the medium to long term.

6) I doubt this would be the case. Most of the DPMs would be from former coalition partners anyway. (Chuwit is a businessman and can be appeased.) Only the Dems would be a risk, but the Cabinet rules at the whim of the MPs, so I doubt the Democrat 2nd DPM would be able to cause much trouble.

7) The government and ministries would simply continue current projects. I said explicitly that nothing ambitious or controversial would be attempted. Just steady the ship (and let the Dems skim off whatever they can from their quota so they are not starved too much) for 12-18 months so that the Dems stop coming up with excuses and more blockages during the next election.

8) Go do your research before slamming my proposal. I have looked at election results by individual constituencies. Obviously if the ideological split in a constituency was 85-10-x as in your example, it is very likely that two pro-democracy candidates would be in first and second place. This is individual candidates running (like in the Senate races), not parties sending in one candidate each. Likewise, I would expect that in the Dem strongholds in the South, most constituencies would be a cleansweep of 2 pro-Establishment candidates. Using 2011 election results as a basis, it is very likely that we (pro-democracy candidates) will still get around 40-45% of the seats, with Dem-leaning candidates getting around 30-35%. So definitely it would not be a "rigged" council, as you predict. While it is a risk (a valid risk at that, as we need to get pro-democracy people elected), it is definitely much better than what we would be facing if we don't negotiate now (an appointed people's council of "professionals" or "experts" that would be dominated by elites).

9) Those four were just starters and four points which I will vehemently defend. I said the Dems and Pheu Thai should back them, not force them on the elected constitutional drafting assembly, obviously. By the way we already have a party list now, and yes people vote twice (once for party once for representative). Just that the party list is 125 MPs compared to 375 constituency MPs. I am sure a democratic constitutional drafting assembly would (as it did in 1997) get rid of the unelected Senators and rogue independent bodies and judiciary (hence my fourth point on the judiciary).

While I am pro-Thaksin, I do not think that first-past-the-post is a fair system. It marginalizes minorities, especially in areas where there is a dominant power in place. For example, as a Bangkok voter in the Phranakorn district my voice will neve be heard if we only had first-past-the-post. It is no wonder that the Labour government was so unpopular, because the constituencies skewed the proportion of MPs in parliament while so many were against them. The Dems would not be the only winners from switching to mixed-member proportional representation. Many reds in Bangkok and the South would now have their voices heard. According to the 2011 election results, and most polls at the moment, Pheu Thai would win more than 45% of the seats anyway, so the Dems can go take a hike. However, what it would do is give them a chance of winning later, invest in acting like a proper opposition, and stay off the streets. It would also get them to shut up about an "unfair" electoral system. There are pros and cons to each electoral system, FPTP being that it produces strong government, but strong government can only rule strongly if it holds power "in reality". Clearly this is not the case in Thailand. So, given our electoral dominance anyway and the polarization of things, I think it makes sense to switch to a more inclusive system so the Dems stop coming up with excuses for their unelectability and incompetence. The system works well in Germany and in New Zeland, although it is not yet that popular worldwide. This does not mean it won't work for us.