Thai politics - CDC's dilemma: How powerful should our leader be?

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
CDC's dilemma: How powerful should our leader be?
Attayuth Bootsripoom

BANGKOK: -- A reform issue that has been widely debated among the constitution drafters and political observers is how a prime minister should be chosen. Should the government leader be selected by the majority of the House of Representatives or should he or she be directly elected by the voters?

There are supporters and detractors for both suggestions. One side wants a government to be strong while the other does not want a government that is "too strong".

One side backs the idea of complete power separation between the administrative and legislative branches - MPs could not become cabinet members, the prime minister could not dissolve the House, and lawmakers could not censure government ministers, among other proposals.

For proponents of this idea, it would make it easier to scrutinise the administration. But its detractors believe such a complete separation of powers would make it impossible for the legislature to examine the administration closely.

In fact, direct or indirect election of a prime minister is not the essence of this matter. Both ways have their strengths and weaknesses. Something more important than acquiring a government head is the scope of the PM's duties, power and responsibilities, as well as the framework for scrutinising the PM's use of authority.

Many of those who want direct election of the prime minister and cabinet members desire a government head with decisive and complete power who is able to run the country more independently than before. This kind of expectation is no different from that of people in countries where voters elect the top government leader.

However, direct election of the prime minister would be useless if the new constitution limited the power of the government leader - for example, if the PM were to be prohibited from keeping certain election promises or transferring senior bureaucrats. Despite massive backing from voters, such a PM would end up being unable to do anything much while in office.

With complete separation of power, it would be more difficult for the legislature to scrutinise the PM's use of authority. It is likely the majority of MPs in the House of Representatives would be from the same political party as the government head. Also, with complete separation of the administrative and legislative branches, the PM would barely have any responsibility towards Parliament. He or she would be unable to dissolve the House even when there was a political vacuum, such as a crippling conflict between the government and Parliament.

Therefore, the idea of complete separation of powers is likely to lead to either a directly elected PM who is much more powerful or a government that is largely paralysed.

The question is: Will there really be direct election of a PM and complete separation of powers between the administrative and legislative branches?

The recent coup and many ideas for drafting a new constitution seem to derive from fear of certain types of politician who have strong charisma and could win a widespread following. Direct election of a PM would certainly lead to more of such a breed of politicians. Such politicians can attract much support and also spawn controversies that lead to opposition from people who disagree with them. That scenario could bring about conflict between their supporters and detractors.

This is something the people involved with drafting the new constitution should take into consideration. Clauses about the government head should be carefully written, as they could lead to further progress for the country's politics, or a new round of conflict.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/CDCs-dilemma-How-powerful-should-our-leader-be-30249563.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-11

[Mango Bob]

Another opinion. Should he be self appointed.

[chainarong]

Neither , the P.M. should be selected from the leader of the winning party ,if either the PTP or Democrats or who ever win the elections , the leader of that party is the PM, after all the voters generally vote for the charismatic leader or the party machine , having said this, you can have a spill where by some other person from the successful party can challenge for top spot and a secret ballot is then taken, where you have a conflict is where you have inexperienced newcomers (Yingluck) coming into the PM job, this can be overcome by stipulating a PM must have a period of 5 years as a senior MP in the party, the leader is only as powerful as the members allow, as you have a cabinet vote, then it is taken to the party room and all members of Parliament then vote on issues, say as the introduction of high speed rail network and is passed 26 to 24 it means the PM has 24 in the room against him, not like the Prayuth transparency

[Tatsujin]

I propose that the PM be appointed from the "losing" party, and that the Cabinet members then be selected from kindergarten children who don't know what Politics are (same as they have currently I think). Can't be any worse than every other option they've tried (and failed with) here.

[whybother]

Neither , the P.M. should be selected from the leader of the winning party ,if either the PTP or Democrats or who ever win the elections , the leader of that party is the PM, after all the voters generally vote for the charismatic leader or the party machine , having said this, you can have a spill where by some other person from the successful party can challenge for top spot and a secret ballot is then taken, where you have a conflict is where you have inexperienced newcomers (Yingluck) coming into the PM job, this can be overcome by stipulating a PM must have a period of 5 years as a senior MP in the party, the leader is only as powerful as the members allow, as you have a cabinet vote, then it is taken to the party room and all members of Parliament then vote on issues, say as the introduction of high speed rail network and is passed 26 to 24 it means the PM has 24 in the room against him, not like the Prayuth transparency

How about they do it the same as every other country using the Westminster system, where a majority of the MPs elected by the people elect the PM from the elected MPs. I know it's not a new idea, but it seems to work in a lot of other places.

[ColdSingha]

powerful enough already i'd say

Edited December 11, 2014 by ColdSingha

[Thailand]

Ask the current pm. As he holds absolute power he will give you your answer..

[englishoak]

Consult the palm reader.

[FangFerang]

This is a healthy debate. A balance of power, where a losing major party still has some say in affairs keeps the winners in check.

The writer is correct. Some balance must be achieved where the government is not paralyzed (a problem with the American electoral system).

It is not simple nor simply made into a law that achieves a goal of balanced powers.

I like Thai people. The ones I met that I do not like are less than one in one hundred. I have serious concerns about their future.

[peecee]

Neither , the P.M. should be selected from the leader of the winning party ,if either the PTP or Democrats or who ever win the elections , the leader of that party is the PM, after all the voters generally vote for the charismatic leader or the party machine , having said this, you can have a spill where by some other person from the successful party can challenge for top spot and a secret ballot is then taken, where you have a conflict is where you have inexperienced newcomers (Yingluck) coming into the PM job, this can be overcome by stipulating a PM must have a period of 5 years as a senior MP in the party, the leader is only as powerful as the members allow, as you have a cabinet vote, then it is taken to the party room and all members of Parliament then vote on issues, say as the introduction of high speed rail network and is passed 26 to 24 it means the PM has 24 in the room against him, not like the Prayuth transparency

It's immaterial in Thailand, there is no independent judiciary and the military run the country either directly or through their puppets.

[rickirs]

So long as the military can continuously and unilaterally overthrow the government whenever "conflict" arises to threaten "national security," how government is formed is only an academic exercise. Of the different forms of democratic governments reviewed by the NRC/CDC none have a military that operates with impunity from nonmilitary oversight, whether it be by a civilian head of government or monarchy head of state.

The dilemma should not be "how powerful should our leader be" but "how weak should our military be?" But there is nothing in the discussions that addresses that issue and that is telling as to the strength of the military to direct governance of Thailand.

[whybother]

So long as the military can continuously and unilaterally overthrow the government whenever "conflict" arises to threaten "national security," how government is formed is only an academic exercise. Of the different forms of democratic governments reviewed by the NRC/CDC none have a military that operates with impunity from nonmilitary oversight, whether it be by a civilian head of government or monarchy head of state.

The dilemma should not be "how powerful should our leader be" but "how weak should our military be?" But there is nothing in the discussions that addresses that issue and that is telling as to the strength of the military to direct governance of Thailand.

The military in every country is strong enough to overthrow a government. It doesn't happen because the laws and the people keep the government in check. Also because there are people in the military that will stand up to someone that would take over and say "hey, that's not right".

[Kooweerup]

Does it matter? If the generals don't like it they just stage a coup and turf the government out. The Military have run the country for decades and if you don't tow their line they dismiss you.

[tbthailand]

the current 'leader' is literally all-powerful