ANALYSIS
German-style electoral system spurs interest
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION



But observers say it's no fix for parliamentary dictatorship

BANGKOK: -- IN A SUGGESTION seen as an attempt to prevent "parliamentary dictatorship", a German-style parliamentary and electoral system proposed by a charter drafter has been welcomed as an "interesting" proposal.

Nevertheless, it is difficult for those proposing the idea to deny that such a proposal was not aimed at limiting the power of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) member Nakarin Mektrairat this week proposed the implementation of a new parliamentary and electoral system similar to that of Germany, saying it would help solve Thailand's political problems.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam reacted yesterday that it was an interesting proposal - and such a system might be tested in certain areas before a final decision could be made on it.

"The good thing [about the German system] is that all votes would be taken into account," he said. However, he cautioned that such a system may create groups of small political parties - something that is not desirable.

So what is it that makes the German system an attractive option?

After World War II, Germany came up with a way to prevent a dictatorial administration from taking power.

It was to be through a system that combined the best of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) and proportional-representation (PR) electoral systems.

FPTP systems that had been used in the West such as Britain and the United States usually produced clear majorities in a parliament or congress controlled by a few large parties. Their downside, however, was that votes for the losing candidates counted for nothing, as "winner takes all."

On the other hand, the PR system boasts that every single vote from voters is taken into account, as the number of seats allocated to political parties in the parliament are consistent with the proportion each party receives nationwide. Hence the number of votes is better reflected.

However, it was evident that the PR system could produce political fragmentation - many small parties - that resulted in an ineffective and highly unstable government.

The German political system compromised, by letting people adopt both systems. On the ballot, people voted for, first, a candidate for constituency MP and, second, for a party.

The number of parliamentary seats allocated to a party was relative to the percentage of accumulated nationwide votes for that party.

In addition, to curb political fragmentation, the party must receive at least 5 per cent of national votes to be allocated any seats in the parliament.

The Bundestag (German lower house) consists of 299 constituency MPs and an equal number of party-list MPs. Thailand's pre-coup electoral system consisted of 400 constituency MPs and 100 party-list, using the FPTP electoral system.

As evident in the most recent general election in 2011, two large parties dominated Thai politics - Pheu Thai and the Democrats - and the former received a landslide majority.

This led many to view it as a problem, since the governing party could pass any bills it wished, while parliamentary debates had become meaningless, since the governing-party members acted in unity and discipline when it came to voting.

A study by King Prajadhipok's Institute researcher Satithorn Thananithichote suggested the seats' allocation to the first- and second-largest parties in Parliament would have been much closer if the German proportional representation system was used.

However, he cautioned that "it cannot solve all the problems [of so-called parliamentary dictatorship]. If we change the system [into a German-style one], the real deciding factor for voters will be the person whom voters want to be prime minister, who is candidate No 1 on the party list."

He said such emphasis on a party list could result in the winning party getting even more seats in Parliament.

"It is possible that [if] the German system is implemented, the Pheu Thai Party could get as many as 70 per cent of the national vote, hence this wouldn't solve the problem," he told The Nation.

He concluded that although "it could narrow the margin between the biggest and second-biggest party, it could not prevent [a party] winning a landslide".

He said he personally thought the German system was "acceptable" in Thai politics, because it would give more chance to smaller and medium-sized parties.

The deputy rector of Thammasat University, Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, said the German system would better reflect the votes a party received in the election. He said that in the past, the governing party received more parliamentary seats than it should have, while the opposition received fewer seats than it should. The result was a weak opposition and overly strong government.

He said the German system was suitable for a country with deep political conflicts, because the Parliament better reflected more accurately voters' representation and it would encourage more compromise. Therefore, the German system was one of the most interesting options.

He then concluded: "A bigger party like Pheu Thai wouldn't like this system because it would be allocated fewer parliamentary seats, while the smaller parties would get more seats. I think it is the fairest electoral system."

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/German-style-electoral-system-spurs-interest-30249053.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-03

Any system which allows MPs/PMs to appointed without facing an electorate is open to abuse by wealthy power seekers.

At least they are 'up front' that the purpose of a new electoral system is to keep Dr. Thaksin's puppet parties from getting too much control. The Germans had the experience of a certain Austrian national who achieved 'parliamentary dictatorship so I suppose their system might be best; short of not having elections at all until Thaksin is either dead or too feeble to affect government policy. The more I experience the influence of Thaksin, the less democratic I become. I suppose his followers feel the same way. In any case, it is going to be an uphill battle for democracy to succeed in Thailand.

And around and around it goes. The problem in Thai politics is not the style of electoral system but the abuse of that system. Choose whatever electoral system that fairly represents the percentage of the vote. What the CDC and the NRC have to get right more than a fair representation of the vote is that the judiciary is free from politicial pressure from both the Legislative and Executive and their vigilantes groups, and that all three groups are held to account by way of the law being upheld equally and more importantly enforced. And that is for once and for all doing away with amnesties for anybody...do the crime then do the time.

Edited December 3, 201411 yr by Roadman

However, it was evident that the PR system could produce political fragmentation - many small parties - that resulted in an ineffective and highly unstable government.

A highly unstable government...as apposed to all the completely stable governments Thailand has had?

There is a way to avoid political fragmentation, but it would never work here, it's called compromise, and it is long out of fashion with governments everywhere.

to add: Germany is , same as the USA, a federal system, meaning there are local states within the state, with local parliaments and goverments.

They have special fields of independence, like police-force, education (this one is reason of many problems).

The central parliament is most important and is in control of all money and makes laws for the whole country. The central governement is in control of foreign office, and does have many other departments and in reality "makes" the laws (the parliament has to vote for them).

There is a second "house", which represents the local governements, members are the prime ministers of the local governements.

The "second house" can refuse laws in special cases.

Ok, you see, it is not that simple at first glance, but it is not that complicate. I think most voters do not understand it, but what the heck do they understand..

It is kind if check and balance, and some steps are implimented to keep the governement within some borders. So most times, if there is not a party with overhelming majority , the Governement is forced to make deals with the second large party and other smaller parties. A bit like the USA system. but not only 2 parties but more smaller ones. this is, because even smaller parties are represented in parliament (proportional-representation (PR). The smaller parties must receive at least 5 per cent of national votes to be allocated any seats in the parliament.

The check and ballance could make the governement kind of "lame duck", but not like in the US, because the "Chancelor"/prime minister is voted by the parliament, so he/she has at least a minimal majority in parlament. Not like in the US, where there is an election for the "President" and different ones for the houses of parliaments. So in the whole, a 50 % "dictatorship" is not possible and a total "lame duck" is not possible. And the balance point of power can change with every election in the local states ("Laender"). Sometimes a bit unstable, because there is about one election in a local state every 6 month. So a bit of election campaigning all the time, but not that much unstable as it looks at first glance

Everyone is used to it. I think, the limits of the governement are a good thing, it limits the chance to ruin the whole country within a short period ! They need a longer time doing it!

Personaly, I like the idea of a federal system ,with kind of independant states. Not too many ofcourse (f.e. 10 for Thailand. Problem would be, that Bangkok is so overwhelming in Thailand. I guess, ´nearly 50 of the GDP is from Bangkok and 15 % of the population. And there is a need of transfering tax money from this center to the weaker, poorer parts of Thailand. that is and would be a real problem! In Germany the population and productivity/income/economy is not that much concentrated. We have many smaller centers. Not that bad. Mega-cities like Bangkok have a tendency of having some nearly uncontrolable problems (f.e. polution, traffic, criminal rate..). The better informed Thai politicians do know this and are trying to develop other parts of Thailand (not only touristic industry).

Edited December 3, 201411 yr by dieter1

Thailand needs to get rid of the centralised system of governance, a federal regional structure could be the way forward.

But whatever they choose as long as corruption is endemic it doesnt matter

Edited December 3, 201411 yr by kingalfred

Whatever system they come up with there will be abuse of it here, no question about that.

The best system is the Westminster system , although some would disagree, it is not perfect but it better than the rest , at least you know where all the ego testicle crack pots are , in parliament.

What about the Swiss system would that not work here- rotation so everyone gets a chance. Each province here is autonomous.

BUT, but the German system is well, Foreign and we know the Thais have nothing to learn from such sources !

I suppose they could tweak it for use here then claimed it had to be ' improved ' before it was really any good.

'After WW II, the Germans came up with a way to avoid having a "dictatorial" administration take power. This would fail before any attempt in Thailand.

you would need German brains to understand it and a German sense of morality to implement it, both things sorely lacking here.

I am from New Zealand and they changed the first past the post system to PR (proportional reprentation)

This system is ok for countries with high populations but NZ population was around 3 million when they did it.

It increased the MP's buy 20-25% and what ever party got in they can put who they like on the benches and also if the party that got in did not have the amount of MP's on their side to get a vote through they can and did deals with some of the minor party's to vote on their side. We also got MP's inthat no one every heard of with no political experience, it was the wrong thing to do in NZ with such a low population.

What about the Swiss system would that not work here- rotation so everyone gets a chance. Each province here is autonomous.

You are joking, right?

Based on past experience can you imagine Thaksin ever giving up control when he was do to rotate?

Autonomous provinces - now that would lead to some very "creative" things in Thailand!

The best system is the Westminster system , although some would disagree, it is not perfect but it better than the rest , at least you know where all the ego testicle crack pots are , in parliament.

Oscar Wilde observed that the 1880 Lunatics Act prevented the feeble minded from voting; alas it did not prevent them from standing for election.

you would need German brains to understand it and a German sense of morality to implement it, both things sorely lacking here.

True.

You can study the British, German, US and Canadian models - all of which are good with their own strengths and weaknesses. But, the cultures and behaviors here are very different. The lack of a robust, fair, unbiased non corrupt judicial and law enforcement system undermines democracy at once. The fact most Thais say some corruption is o k, when its beneficial too them is not going to help implementing any democratic process.

you would need German brains to understand it and a German sense of morality to implement it, both things sorely lacking here.

True.

You can study the British, German, US and Canadian models - all of which are good with their own strengths and weaknesses. But, the cultures and behaviors here are very different. The lack of a robust, fair, unbiased non corrupt judicial and law enforcement system undermines democracy at once. The fact most Thais say some corruption is o k, when its beneficial too them is not going to help implementing any democratic process.

Yeah, I truly feel that it would be tough. Morality and the will to do work for the sake of the people is not really a priority for Thai Politicians (at least so it seems/seemed). There is no or very little corruption in Germany it seems and that means that nobody is working for their 'own benefits' which of course make decision easier. Here Politician A: let's go left (coz I get a few million there)....Politician B: let's go right (coz i get a few million there)....have nothing in common with Poor Thai person A-Z: Let's go straight because that's what is right and will bring us forward and it benefits the country in general.

BUT, but the German system is well, Foreign and we know the Thais have nothing to learn from such sources !

I suppose they could tweak it for use here then claimed it had to be ' improved ' before it was really any good.

Exactly. By the time it had been tweaked, it will have loopholes the size of bargirls earrings.

Guys you got it all wrong!!

They are studying the German model pre 1945!!

Guys you got it all wrong!!

They are studying the German model pre 1945!!

Oh dear. One faction forming an armed militia to intimidate and kill political opponents, and the promotion of a charismatic megalomaniac criminal as a semi-deity were certainly pre-1945, and worthy of study.

The coup has stopped movement in that direction, hopefully on a permanent basis.

Edited December 3, 201411 yr by halloween

"All votes are taken into account" ?

Maybe, but many do not go to the party voted for. If that party gets less than 5 pct, then your vote will be split and go to other parties, often enough to your political enemy.

"The good thing [about the German system] is that all votes would be taken into account," he said. However, he cautioned that such a system may create groups of small political parties - something that is not desirable.

The hurdle for each party to gain seats within the German Bundestag is 5 % of the national vote. Before WWII during the Weimar Republic this hurdle didn't exist and it caused small political parties to enter the German Reichstag and also enabled Hitler to size power.

In the current German Bundestag we have 5 parties that are represented with the two main parties forming a coalition government because none of the two major parties on its own could form a government. If the same situation in Thailand would arise it would mean that the Pheu Thai Party and the Democrat Party would form a coalition government and that is a situation I can't see happening because it would mean to compromise on both sides and that is something which is not going to happen in my country for a long time. It would require political opponents to talk to each other and find a solution that will suit the majority of voters and not push their own agendas no matter what happens.

Maybe the current situation will allow them to reflect on their past politics and behaviour, resulting in changes to their policies and to be more constructive when being in power again once democracy has been returned to the people via the vote.

Guys you got it all wrong!!

They are studying the German model pre 1945!!

Oh dear. One faction forming an armed militia to intimidate and kill political opponents, and the promotion of a charismatic megalomaniac criminal as a semi-deity were certainly pre-1945, and worthy of study.

The coup has stopped movement in that direction, hopefully on a permanent basis.

Maybe you should study the Weimar Republic and find that all extreme faction in the political conflict had been armed and killed political opponents. It was only after Hitler was made head of government (by von Papen and his allies sitting in industry and banking) that the other factions were disarmed. When establishing his stronghold within the Government Hitler during the Night of the long knifes ensured that the heads of his armed factions (SA) were cut off too which ensured him the loyalty of the armed forces giving their oath of obedience after the Reichspraesident Hindenburg died making Hitler the ultimate leader of that country.

It didn't make him a semi-deity but a dictator and they don't like oposition or critic when implementing their political ideas.

Implementing a system in a pirate state, priceless....

The CDC is trying to design the perfect apple while ignoring the tree from which it must grow and the soil from which sustains the tree. To truly achieve a democratic electoral representative government, the CDC must figuratively look at the root of the problem. And it cannot.

you would need German brains to understand it and a German sense of morality to implement it, both things sorely lacking here.

Fortunately. ...

Guys you got it all wrong!!

They are studying the German model pre 1945!!

No, this is about post-war Bundestag.

Guys you got it all wrong!!

They are studying the German model pre 1945!!

They're not studying it, they're implementing it!

?