Thai Constitution drafters plan for 200 senators

[rubl]

"...200 senators would be indirectly elected from five groups from the public."

Going from half the Senate unelected in the 2007 Constitution to the entire Senate unelected. What a surprise.

Not only that, but it seems this unelected body will get quite a bit of more power.

The next elections could bring in a government that is seriously limited in their powers, democracy junta style.

Can you already explain to us here what "indirectly elected" means ? To understand that makes it easier to comment.

From the Bangkok Post, they describe this as candidates selected by a "professionals council" and and then selected by the people. So, the same as Hong Kong - you get to vote from a small group of the "right" people.

And this is only for one out of five pools - the remaining four pools would be appointed. One of the pools is former military, and the other is former prime ministers.

Seems like enough to fully stack the deck - and then complete the fix by giving much more power to the senate.

Have they been given enough time to show their true intentions? Can we start to critize now,or just wait until the fix is fully locked in and then it will be too late?

Thanks, I'll had have a look at the BP site first then.

BTW the pool of former PM's is surely a large one

EDIT excuses for the very unfortunate typo)

Edited December 25, 2014 by rubl

[sjaak327]

Not only that, but it seems this unelected body will get quite a bit of more power.

The next elections could bring in a government that is seriously limited in their powers, democracy junta style.

Can you already explain to us here what "indirectly elected" means ? To understand that makes it easier to comment.

Why would I need to explain, it is stated in the article. They are not going to be elected by the electorate but from five groups. They even mentioned the relevant groups.

It is clear that the senate gets more power, and it is clear that the Thai electorate as such has no direct or indirect involvement in electing the senators.

Very bad idea, but from the junta's perspective an ideal situation, as they now created a back door to circumvent the Thai electorate without the need for a coup and a charter rewrite.

Since not even you know what 'indirect election' means all your ranting based on nothing is just some more hot air.

Apparently the Bangkok post knows. See post above yours.

Wouldn't it be a novel idea to have a direct election for the senate. And is such a suggestion not being constructive rubl.

[rubl]

Since not even you know what 'indirect election' means all your ranting based on nothing is just some more hot air.

Apparently the Bangkok post knows. See post above yours.

Wouldn't it be a novel idea to have a direct election for the senate. And is such a suggestion not being constructive rubl.

Read it then.

BTW novel ideas need a wee bit more than just stating. Some objective reasoning would be nice.

PS I also think the Senate should be directly elected, but with strict requirements regarding education, skills and knowledge/experience. Furthermore with Thailand being good at extended political families and relations I would retain some reastricting on having (close) family members allowed to stand for parliament and Senate. The more mature and functioning the democracy gets the less restrictions may be needed. Keep in mind that one of the weaknesses of a democracy is that crafty people can easily corrupt it's intentions. IMHO

Edited December 25, 2014 by rubl

[brucec64]

Since not even you know what 'indirect election' means all your ranting based on nothing is just some more hot air.

Apparently the Bangkok post knows. See post above yours.

Wouldn't it be a novel idea to have a direct election for the senate. And is such a suggestion not being constructive rubl.

Read it then.

BTW novel ideas need a wee bit more than just stating. Some objective reasoning would be nice.

PS I also think the Senate should be directly elected, but with strict requirements regarding education, skills and knowledge/experience. Furthermore with Thailand being good at extended political families and relations I would retain some reastricting on having (close) family members allowed to stand for parliament and Senate. The more mature and functioning the democracy gets the less restrictions may be needed. Keep in mind that one of the weaknesses of a democracy is that crafty people can easily corrupt it's intentions. IMHO

Finally, something we can agree on!

I think a fully elected senate will ensure that power rests with the people, and since they are supposed to act as the somber voices of reason, putting in strict requirements is justified. However, the requirements need to be objective versus subjective, so that the restriction of senate candidates is unbiased and not politicized (by any side).

[sjaak327]

Since not even you know what 'indirect election' means all your ranting based on nothing is just some more hot air.

Apparently the Bangkok post knows. See post above yours.

Wouldn't it be a novel idea to have a direct election for the senate. And is such a suggestion not being constructive rubl.

Read it then.

BTW novel ideas need a wee bit more than just stating. Some objective reasoning would be nice.

PS I also think the Senate should be directly elected, but with strict requirements regarding education, skills and knowledge/experience. Furthermore with Thailand being good at extended political families and relations I would retain some reastricting on having (close) family members allowed to stand for parliament and Senate. The more mature and functioning the democracy gets the less restrictions may be needed. Keep in mind that one of the weaknesses of a democracy is that crafty people can easily corrupt it's intentions. IMHO

The reasoning behind my desire for a senate elected by the electorate was left out because I consider it to be obvious. When one strives to allow the electorate to determine whom exactly should run the country, all bodies that have the ability to determine or influence the way the country is run should be elected.

To me personally, it doesn't matter if this would be direct elections, or indirect elections, as long as the people that elect are themselves elected by the electorate.

As to requirements to become a senator (or a MP for that matter), to me the most obvious requirements would be that they are Thai and not have an active ban from politics. Any education requirements are not needed, if one can vote, one should also be able to run for office.

Requirements as not being a family member of another politician are not needed, why would someone loose their constitutional right to run for office, just because they happen to be a family member of people that are politically active ?

[rubl]

From the Bangkok Post, they describe this as candidates selected by a "professionals council" and and then selected by the people. So, the same as Hong Kong - you get to vote from a small group of the "right" people.

And this is only for one out of five pools - the remaining four pools would be appointed. One of the pools is former military, and the other is former prime ministers.

Seems like enough to fully stack the deck - and then complete the fix by giving much more power to the senate.

Have they been given enough time to show their true intentions? Can we start to critize now,or just wait until the fix is fully locked in and then it will be too late?

So, Senators from the first four pools appointed and selected through a to be determined process. The Fifth group indirectly elected as in selected by professional councils from certain groups based on certain criteria after which the electorate can vote for their choice amongst the selected people.

The first two groups (PMs, not-political party related House Speakers, Permanent Secretaries and Chiefs of Armed Forces, all must be 'former' only) are probably small. The third group is interesting with representatives of organisations like TCoC, FTI, MCT and so. That's where we start to get real people. The fourth group with representatives from real life like civil sector, agricultural coops, labour unions, peoples organisations. Here I would assume to find academics and grassroot representatives as well.

All still a bit vague, no details on size of groups. Actually not many details at all.

The Senate had 74 appointed, 76 elected members. What it might become not detailed yet.

For the rest let me repeat what I wrote to Sjakie

"PS I also think the Senate should be directly elected, but with strict requirements regarding education, skills and knowledge/experience. Furthermore with Thailand being good at extended political families and relations I would retain some reastricting on having (close) family members allowed to stand for parliament and Senate. The more mature and functioning the democracy gets the less restrictions may be needed. Keep in mind that one of the weaknesses of a democracy is that crafty people can easily corrupt it's intentions. IMHO"

Edited December 25, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

The reasoning behind my desire for a senate elected by the electorate was left out because I consider it to be obvious. When one strives to allow the electorate to determine whom exactly should run the country, all bodies that have the ability to determine or influence the way the country is run should be elected.

To me personally, it doesn't matter if this would be direct elections, or indirect elections, as long as the people that elect are themselves elected by the electorate.

As to requirements to become a senator (or a MP for that matter), to me the most obvious requirements would be that they are Thai and not have an active ban from politics. Any education requirements are not needed, if one can vote, one should also be able to run for office.

Requirements as not being a family member of another politician are not needed, why would someone loose their constitutional right to run for office, just because they happen to be a family member of people that are politically active ?

On the education requirements we seem to disagree. Please note that both the 1997 and 2007 Constitution had real requirements (with the 2007 charter even a wee bit stricter). For the parliament it might not matter too much, but for a body like the Senate I think it essential. What might be needed is a clear weighting of practical knowledge & experience versus education.

As for family members, too many cases where Thai families have too much say in politics to further their own case rather than the case for all Thais. With people going on and on about 'unelected' elite I can only add that also 'elected' elite should be avoided. The Shinawatra clan comes to mind, Chidlob, the SilpaArchas and so.

[sjaak327]

The reasoning behind my desire for a senate elected by the electorate was left out because I consider it to be obvious. When one strives to allow the electorate to determine whom exactly should run the country, all bodies that have the ability to determine or influence the way the country is run should be elected.

To me personally, it doesn't matter if this would be direct elections, or indirect elections, as long as the people that elect are themselves elected by the electorate.

As to requirements to become a senator (or a MP for that matter), to me the most obvious requirements would be that they are Thai and not have an active ban from politics. Any education requirements are not needed, if one can vote, one should also be able to run for office.

Requirements as not being a family member of another politician are not needed, why would someone loose their constitutional right to run for office, just because they happen to be a family member of people that are politically active ?

On the education requirements we seem to disagree. Please note that both the 1997 and 2007 Constitution had real requirements (with the 2007 charter even a wee bit stricter). For the parliament it might not matter too much, but for a body like the Senate I think it essential. What might be needed is a clear weighting of practical knowledge & experience versus education.

As for family members, too many cases where Thai families have too much say in politics to further their own case rather than the case for all Thais. With people going on and on about 'unelected' elite I can only add that also 'elected' elite should be avoided. The Shinawatra clan comes to mind, Chidlob, the SilpaArchas and so.

Whilst you are listing several families , it would be only fair to point to the current lot as well. Isn't the brother of the current PM a member of the NLA for instance ?

Regardless, if these people are directly elected, they are accountable and any continued term in office would have to come from the same electorate.

As to education requirements, a relevant education is in no way a guarantee, in fact real life experience would be preferable.

What is most important here is the role of the senate, are they just suppose to weigh laws that passed the lower house on their constitutional merits, or is this body suppose to do more than that. If the answer to the last question is yes, they should be directly accountable to the people. This would be more important than any educational requirement.

Edited December 25, 2014 by sjaak327

[tbthailand]

Since not even you know what 'indirect election' means all your ranting based on nothing is just some more hot air.

Apparently the Bangkok post knows. See post above yours.

Wouldn't it be a novel idea to have a direct election for the senate. And is such a suggestion not being constructive rubl.

Read it then.

BTW novel ideas need a wee bit more than just stating. Some objective reasoning would be nice.

PS I also think the Senate should be directly elected, but with strict requirements regarding education, skills and knowledge/experience. Furthermore with Thailand being good at extended political families and relations I would retain some reastricting on having (close) family members allowed to stand for parliament and Senate. The more mature and functioning the democracy gets the less restrictions may be needed. Keep in mind that one of the weaknesses of a democracy is that crafty people can easily corrupt it's intentions. IMHO

The American constitution defines this as

30 years old

citizen (for at least 9 years) and

resident in the state they represent

Mind you, these are the qualifications written into the constitution way back when the USA wasn't a mature democracy.

[djjamie]

This is wonderful news. I am all for a model based on Canada's fully appointed senate.

Thank god for the appointed senators. Without them making sound judgments based on facts over beliefs, evidence over hearsay and morals over money Thailands majority voice would be lost to the dictatorial tendencies of any future government. Thai's have admitted they have no idea what a senator's job entails. That wa shown through the voting in of an Udon senator who smuggled her husband across the border to Laos to escape the law. The CM senator was affiliated with RCM51, a minority driven, violent terrorist group. These lawbreakers were responsible for passing laws. When the majority of the population has no idea what a senator's job entails this is a very bad sign. Thank god the entities that appoint a senate do so knowing full well the gravity of what a dictatorial government could do.

Imagine if the senate was fully elected and the people (who have no idea what they were voting for) voted for the guy with the red shirt and that guy was only interested in a UDD agenda. The amnesty bill would have passed and the majority of Thai's that did not want it would have sparked a civil conflict.

​Thank god for appointed senators.

Edited December 25, 2014 by djjamie

[Thai at Heart]

The perfect self-reproducing network!

Members of independent organisations will choose senate members, and senate members will approve nominations of members of independent organisations such as court, nacc, ec.....

This network can de facto rule the country without any other control than by themselves!

It actually sounds rather like Hong Kong, which was thrown out there as a possibility by Sondhi Limtongkul all those years ago.

My peoples type of democracy I think he called it.

[Thai at Heart]

It really warms the cockles on my heart to read all the constructive comments here. All those wonderful, selfless posters who only want the best for Thailand. Please excuse me for a moment, I have to pink away a tear

What always surprises me is how some people seem to think that what is going on here is the best for ALL of thailand, not just a small, select group.

It's done for the best of all Thai, but how it works out is a different matter. If this government with the reforms ends up succeeding to please a small, select group only we have a problem.

We need Education reform for sure. To teach respect while questioning all.

There are 20mn farmers and god knows how many millions on minimum wage. Until the recent 300 baht jump, minimum wages increased below inflation for 10 years.

I trust this senate will consider the will of the approximately 25mn Thais living on about 500 usd or less per month.

Democracy is slowly dying in Thailand.

[Qent]

And this is only for one out of five pools - the remaining four pools would be appointed. One of the pools is former military, and the other is former prime ministers.

Incorrect.

Try rereading it to what it actually says and then perhaps you can correctly read what it actually says.

[Strangebrew]

Not to familiar with the land area of Thailand but it can't be much bigger than Texas and as far as GDP it is not even close to California and it needs 200 Senators. Look simple divide the country to three regions elect a Governor from each Each region divide each region in to 5 districts With a rep for each These in turn report to Governor, Governors report to PM. PM has offices setup to spend tax money on projects for each region. This all done with public oversight. Independent audits done on yearly bases all contract's are to be on open bids. Write a new law that covers all If found taking bribes or convicted of corruption they get sent to prison for there natural life, and all assets including all there money even money they transfer to friends or relatives is taken back by the government to be used to fund projects for the good of Thailand, in a generation Thailand will enter the 21 st century. As far as cities go Mayors come to mind. Now for police forces Hire outside countries to open schools to train all police officers till Thailand can do it on it's own. With a code of conduct that is strictly enforced.

[Qent]

Not to familiar with the land area of Thailand but it can't be much bigger than Texas and as far as GDP it is not even close to California and it needs 200 Senators.

With nearly an identical population to Thailand, France has 348 Senators.

All of them are indirectly elected.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_(France)

[whybother]

Khamnoon Sitthisaman, committee spokesman, said the panel reached a consensus that 200 senators would be indirectly elected from five groups from the public.

They are the group of former members of the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, the group of former key government officials like former armed forces chiefs and former permanent secretaries, the group of chairpersons at legalized professional organizations such as the Thai Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Thai Industries, a group of people's organizations and the group of various professional organizations.

Has anyone seen any other information about *how* the senators will be "indirectly elected"?

[naboo]

http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/members-and-their-roles/how-members-are-appointed/

The UK "senate" is the House of Lords, which is composed of appointed members in a fairly undemocratic way. However, the House of Lords are less powerful than Parliament.

Bills passed by parliament go to the House of Lords for approval. The House of Lords can reject bills and parliament must redebate, however, bills can, given time, be forced through without the approval of the House of Lords.

Its this last bit that worries me about this appointed senate in Thailand, the Senate holds the balance of power.

*my understanding of the British system comes with no guarantee, feel free to correct me.

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

This the basis for eternal dictatorship and eternal injustice.

A bunch of billionaires appointed by the elite to overrun any will of the majority of Thai people.

Myanmar looks like a beacon of freedom and democracy compared to Thailand.

Max, You beat me to the punch my friend When I read the original post here I thought to myself, gee here Burma is finally making some positive moves to get out of the dark ages with the their self perpetuating military dictatorship model, and yet Thailand seems to be falling head first back into the dark ages with this nonsense As I posted back when the General overthrew the government, when you start hearing rumors about reeducation camps then it is time to pull up stakes and get the heck out of Dodge

[heybruce]

This is wonderful news. I am all for a model based on Canada's fully appointed senate.

Thank god for the appointed senators. Without them making sound judgments based on facts over beliefs, evidence over hearsay and morals over money Thailands majority voice would be lost to the dictatorial tendencies of any future government. Thai's have admitted they have no idea what a senator's job entails. That wa shown through the voting in of an Udon senator who smuggled her husband across the border to Laos to escape the law. The CM senator was affiliated with RCM51, a minority driven, violent terrorist group. These lawbreakers were responsible for passing laws. When the majority of the population has no idea what a senator's job entails this is a very bad sign. Thank god the entities that appoint a senate do so knowing full well the gravity of what a dictatorial government could do.

Imagine if the senate was fully elected and the people (who have no idea what they were voting for) voted for the guy with the red shirt and that guy was only interested in a UDD agenda. The amnesty bill would have passed and the majority of Thai's that did not want it would have sparked a civil conflict.

​Thank god for appointed senators.

Canada's selection of senators is done very differently from the system proposed here, with Canada's system designed for the Senate to represent regions, not special interest groups. Also, traditionally Canada's House of Commons is the more important part of Parliament, and the Senate rarely overrules bills passed by the House of Commons.

However I don't think this is of interest to you. From your post it's obvious that you don't trust democracy and want as little of it in Thailand as possible. What's puzzling is why you have so much faith in a military government, given the past history of military governments in Thailand.

[whybother]

Canada's selection of senators is done very differently from the system proposed here, with Canada's system designed for the Senate to represent regions, not special interest groups. Also, traditionally Canada's House of Commons is the more important part of Parliament, and the Senate rarely overrules bills passed by the House of Commons.

However I don't think this is of interest to you. From your post it's obvious that you don't trust democracy and want as little of it in Thailand as possible. What's puzzling is why you have so much faith in a military government, given the past history of military governments in Thailand.

What is "the system proposed here"?

All I have read is that the senators will be "indirectly elected" from 5 groups. Do you have more information about who is doing the electing or where the people in the "5 groups" come from?

[rubl]

Since both Sjakie and I come from that wonderful country full of Dutch uncles, let me tell all here how 'we' do it

"The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament (the States General) are elected by the members of the twelve Provincial Councils. These elections are indirect: the voters elect the members of the Provincial Councils, who in turn elect the members of the Senate.

As the members of the Senate are not elected directly by the voters, they are rather more remote from the realities of daily politics. They do not, for example, electioneer.

The criteria for membership are the same as those for the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament."

http://www.eerstekamer.nl/begrip/english_2

The criteria are simple, as stated in the Constitution

"Article 56

To be eligible for membership of the Parliament, a person must be a Dutch national, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have been disqualified from voting."

[Mango Bob]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Since both Sjakie and I come from that wonderful country full of Dutch uncles, let me tell all here how 'we' do it

"The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament (the States General) are elected by the members of the twelve Provincial Councils. These elections are indirect: the voters elect the members of the Provincial Councils, who in turn elect the members of the Senate.

As the members of the Senate are not elected directly by the voters, they are rather more remote from the realities of daily politics. They do not, for example, electioneer.

The criteria for membership are the same as those for the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament."

http://www.eerstekamer.nl/begrip/english_2

The criteria are simple, as stated in the Constitution

"Article 56

To be eligible for membership of the Parliament, a person must be a Dutch national, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have been disqualified from voting."

That's too simple to work here in Thailand.

[Qent]

Since both Sjakie and I come from that wonderful country full of Dutch uncles, let me tell all here how 'we' do it

"The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament (the States General) are elected by the members of the twelve Provincial Councils. These elections are indirect: the voters elect the members of the Provincial Councils, who in turn elect the members of the Senate.

As the members of the Senate are not elected directly by the voters, they are rather more remote from the realities of daily politics. They do not, for example, electioneer.

The criteria for membership are the same as those for the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament."

http://www.eerstekamer.nl/begrip/english_2

The criteria are simple, as stated in the Constitution

"Article 56

To be eligible for membership of the Parliament, a person must be a Dutch national, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have been disqualified from voting."

Thank you for that.

So then, we've had France, Canada, UK, and Netherlands as all having their Senate (or equivalent) as being composed of indirectly elected Senators (or equivalent).

[sjaak327]

Since both Sjakie and I come from that wonderful country full of Dutch uncles, let me tell all here how 'we' do it

"The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament (the States General) are elected by the members of the twelve Provincial Councils. These elections are indirect: the voters elect the members of the Provincial Councils, who in turn elect the members of the Senate.

As the members of the Senate are not elected directly by the voters, they are rather more remote from the realities of daily politics. They do not, for example, electioneer.

The criteria for membership are the same as those for the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament."

http://www.eerstekamer.nl/begrip/english_2

The criteria are simple, as stated in the Constitution

"Article 56

To be eligible for membership of the Parliament, a person must be a Dutch national, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have been disqualified from voting."

Thank you for that.

So then, we've had France, Canada, UK, and Netherlands as all having their Senate (or equivalent) as being composed of indirectly elected Senators (or equivalent).

In the Netherlands, senators are indeed not voted in directly by the electorate. However the people that vote for the senators are voted in directly. Therefore the senate directly represent the general election result from the provincial elections held every four years.

In fact, people in the Netherlands don't really care about provincial matters at all, the campaign for those elections focus on national issues and parties that are running the government trying to make sure the senate composition would aide them in getting laws passed. Whilst the opposition is trying to achieve the opposite.

Edited December 26, 2014 by sjaak327

[rubl]

Since both Sjakie and I come from that wonderful country full of Dutch uncles, let me tell all here how 'we' do it

"The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament (the States General) are elected by the members of the twelve Provincial Councils. These elections are indirect: the voters elect the members of the Provincial Councils, who in turn elect the members of the Senate.

As the members of the Senate are not elected directly by the voters, they are rather more remote from the realities of daily politics. They do not, for example, electioneer.

The criteria for membership are the same as those for the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament."

http://www.eerstekamer.nl/begrip/english_2

The criteria are simple, as stated in the Constitution

"Article 56

To be eligible for membership of the Parliament, a person must be a Dutch national, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have been disqualified from voting."

Thank you for that.

So then, we've had France, Canada, UK, and Netherlands as all having their Senate (or equivalent) as being composed of indirectly elected Senators (or equivalent).

In the Netherlands, senators are indeed not voted in directly by the electorate. However the people that vote for the senators are voted in directly. Therefore the senate directly represent the general election result from the provincial elections held every four years.

In fact, people in the Netherlands don't really care about provincial matters at all, the campaign for those elections focus on national issues and parties that are running the government trying to make sure the senate composition would aide them in getting laws passed. Whilst the opposition is trying to achieve the opposite.

So,with another twist the 'indirectly election' of a Senate is justified. Next we'll hear that the electorate only needs to show their dislike in the next election when they don't agree with the indirectly elected Senate.

Anyway since the Dutch government actively tries to influence the composition of the Senate I guess we Dutch also need a coup

[tbthailand]

Since both Sjakie and I come from that wonderful country full of Dutch uncles, let me tell all here how 'we' do it

"The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament (the States General) are elected by the members of the twelve Provincial Councils. These elections are indirect: the voters elect the members of the Provincial Councils, who in turn elect the members of the Senate.

As the members of the Senate are not elected directly by the voters, they are rather more remote from the realities of daily politics. They do not, for example, electioneer.

The criteria for membership are the same as those for the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament."

http://www.eerstekamer.nl/begrip/english_2

The criteria are simple, as stated in the Constitution

"Article 56

To be eligible for membership of the Parliament, a person must be a Dutch national, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have been disqualified from voting."

Thank you for that.

So then, we've had France, Canada, UK, and Netherlands as all having their Senate (or equivalent) as being composed of indirectly elected Senators (or equivalent).

In the Netherlands, senators are indeed not voted in directly by the electorate. However the people that vote for the senators are voted in directly. Therefore the senate directly represent the general election result from the provincial elections held every four years.

In fact, people in the Netherlands don't really care about provincial matters at all, the campaign for those elections focus on national issues and parties that are running the government trying to make sure the senate composition would aide them in getting laws passed. Whilst the opposition is trying to achieve the opposite.

So,with another twist the 'indirectly election' of a Senate is justified. Next we'll hear that the electorate only needs to show their dislike in the next election when they don't agree with the indirectly elected Senate.

Anyway since the Dutch government actively tries to influence the composition of the Senate I guess we Dutch also need a coup

if there were one, would you support it, too?

[JAG]

"...200 senators would be indirectly elected from five groups from the public."

Going from half the Senate unelected in the 2007 Constitution to the entire Senate unelected. What a surprise.

Not only that, but it seems this unelected body will get quite a bit of more power.

The next elections could bring in a government that is seriously limited in their powers, democracy junta style.

Can you already explain to us here what "indirectly elected" means ? To understand that makes it easier to comment.

Oh I think that its pretty clear that " indirectly elected" means appointed by the junta, don't you?

[sjaak327]

Since both Sjakie and I come from that wonderful country full of Dutch uncles, let me tell all here how 'we' do it

"The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament (the States General) are elected by the members of the twelve Provincial Councils. These elections are indirect: the voters elect the members of the Provincial Councils, who in turn elect the members of the Senate.

As the members of the Senate are not elected directly by the voters, they are rather more remote from the realities of daily politics. They do not, for example, electioneer.

The criteria for membership are the same as those for the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament."

http://www.eerstekamer.nl/begrip/english_2

The criteria are simple, as stated in the Constitution

"Article 56

To be eligible for membership of the Parliament, a person must be a Dutch national, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have been disqualified from voting."

Thank you for that.

So then, we've had France, Canada, UK, and Netherlands as all having their Senate (or equivalent) as being composed of indirectly elected Senators (or equivalent).

In the Netherlands, senators are indeed not voted in directly by the electorate. However the people that vote for the senators are voted in directly. Therefore the senate directly represent the general election result from the provincial elections held every four years.

In fact, people in the Netherlands don't really care about provincial matters at all, the campaign for those elections focus on national issues and parties that are running the government trying to make sure the senate composition would aide them in getting laws passed. Whilst the opposition is trying to achieve the opposite.

So,with another twist the 'indirectly election' of a Senate is justified. Next we'll hear that the electorate only needs to show their dislike in the next election when they don't agree with the indirectly elected Senate.

Anyway since the Dutch government actively tries to influence the composition of the Senate I guess we Dutch also need a coup

Nope we don't need a coup. All we need is an amendment on the constitution. One that will be forthcoming, as the senate isn't a platform to influence the way our country is run, but it indeed has become a political tool in the last 20 years.

The senate as envisioned by the constitution is not a tool to obstruct the government and the lower house, yet the reality leans us that it has become this tool (most recently two weeks ago).

Now we either leave it as is, or gain enough support (2/3) to amend the constitution and abolish it altogether. The way thing are going currently, I would be in favor of abolishing it. The senate is not the place to push through political agendas. Especially not since all senators are there due to their parties, none of the senators are chosen directly by the people, hence they have no moral right to deviate from the party they represent.

Edited December 26, 2014 by sjaak327

[SABloke]

Did I read this correctly. The senators will have power to remove the prime minister. but only if it is approved by the house of the Senate.

Does mean they can make laws and remove the prime minister, but they must be approved by themselves? Please someone enlighten me.

They will do whatever they want regardless of the government in charge which will count absolutely ZERO.

Absolute and eternal dictatorship for the land of misery, suffering, violence and corruption.

Welcome to the tenth world, much worse than the worst African dictatorship.

And your last experince under an African dictatorship was when exactly?

[Qent]

Did I read this correctly. The senators will have power to remove the prime minister. but only if it is approved by the house of the Senate.

Does mean they can make laws and remove the prime minister, but they must be approved by themselves? Please someone enlighten me.

They will do whatever they want regardless of the government in charge which will count absolutely ZERO.

Absolute and eternal dictatorship for the land of misery, suffering, violence and corruption.

Welcome to the tenth world, much worse than the worst African dictatorship.

And your last experince under an African dictatorship was when exactly?

Obviously never as otherwise the most hyperbolic comment of the day would have never been made.