EDITORIAL
Only the people can choose the PM
The Nation

Paving the way for unelected parties to become prime minister is a dangerous turn

BANGKOK: -- The Constitutional Drafting Committee (CDC) last week adopted a key element in the new charter by ruling that the prime minister's post would henceforth be open to people other than members of the legislature.

Thailand has had many non-elected premiers in its history, but only under the rule of authoritarian figures, primarily from the military. Citizens, though, have long struggled to have the final say about who runs the government. It is right and legitimate for people to choose their own leader, yet the constitution's drafters are now behaving as though "father knows best". The authors of the new charter are seasoned enough in politics to recall the upheaval of May 1992, and indeed October 1973, when people sacrificed their lives to ensure that the public could choose the person filling the top post.

General Suchinda Kraprayoon staged the 1991 coup to topple the elected government of Chatichai Choonhavan and issued a constitution that forced elected politicians to name him prime minister. He occupied that position for just 47 days. Then came Black May. Society as a whole understood that the country's overall leader had to be elected by general vote.

The subsequent "social contract" embodied in the 1997 Constitution made it clear that only elected members of the House of Representatives were qualified to lead the country. The middleman, the outsider and the man on horseback are not welcome in politics. Military officers who love their country and want to use their abilities and knowledge to help it should contest the elections. If they're good enough, they'll be elected.

From Chatichai to Chuan Leekpai, Banharn Silpa-Archa, Chavalit Yongchaiyut, Thaksin Shinawatra, Samak Sundaravej, Somchai Wongsawat, Abhisit Vejjajiva and Yingluck Shinawatra, all were duly elected to the position. Thailand developed accordingly. There was evidence of corruption in some cases, but the law is there to punish them if they are found guilty.

The CDC claims the constitution should include the option for picking an "outsider" to help resolve political crises. Invoking the calls ahead of the May 22 coup for a "good person" to replace Yingluck to break the political impasse, the CDC points out that the 2007 Constitution allowed for no such solution. It clearly stated that only an elected MP could become prime minister. The CDC must consider whether a genuine political crisis required such manipulation. What would have happened if Abhisit rather than Yingluck were still in government? Our political history shows that coups only occur when the military opposes the government, regardless of the constitutional strictures in place.

In the parliamentary system, a political impasse is relatively easy to overcome by dissolving the House and thus automatically ending the government's term. Then the effort begins to recast the new leadership.

In this year's political impasse, rather than staging a coup, General Prayut Chan-o-cha could have resigned from the Army, joined any political party and trumpeted his reform proposals in the February election campaign. He might have been elected prime minister and his reforms might now be enjoying strong support both at home and abroad rather than facing criticism.

The parliamentary system, well tested over the centuries around the world, offers the ability to resolve crises if the elite sector is clever and calm enough to allow it to work properly. Democracy can never mature here amid constant calls for "good middlemen" from outside Parliament to solve the problems.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Only-the-people-can-choose-the-PM-30250925.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-30

"Only the people can choose the PM" yes by holding free and fair elections for that position.

Once you can get the corruption out of the election (paying for votes) and stabilize the government as a whole and get rid of the violence that occurs, then I think it would be a good time to allow the quote (people) elect the PM.

Poorly reasoned editorial. Whether the PM is an MP doesn't make the process any more democratic. It still is an indirect election of the PM by Parliament. Only a direct election of the PM would be purely democratic.

Prime Minister is the leader of the political party which can command a majority in the governing chamber of elected representatives.

What is so difficult to understand about that

Only the people can choose the PM - Until the army and their backers say otherwise.

Prime Minister is the leader of the political party which can command a majority in the governing chamber of elected representatives.

What is so difficult to understand about that

Wrong!!! Yingluck wasn't the leader of the party. Samak wasn't the leader of the party etc etc.

Certainly they were FROM the political party but they were not the leader of the party!

Let the people decide who should be the PM, yes i agree but in the end it will be MONEY that decides who gets that post

whether you like it or not

Children don't grow up if you rule their lives, sooner or later you have to let go and they have to make their own mistakes in order to learn, as we all did. Sometimes they fight among themselves in order to address their differences but without interference they usually sort it out, if they need help they will ask for it.

This country has never been allowed to get to puberty let alone adulthood.

When I first voted I did as my father did, later on in life I made my own decisions for my own reasons and I learned that even if I disagreed with who was in government the majority had spoken. If that government created hardship or didn't deliver they didn't get in next term, the people learned by their mistakes and chose accordingly. The countries leader needs to be chosen by the people regardless of the methods or outcome, if the people make a mistake they will learn by it (eventually).

The biggest concern is the amount of weapons that appear to be on the streets at the moment esecially what appear to be "military" type weapons, this is something that needs to be addressed seriously.

IMO

It's all over but the crying. The newest charter is not written yet, but the mold seems to have made months ago.

And the tragedy is that this is a temporary fix, and a treating of symptoms rather than causes.

The cycle is not over by any means, nor can cultural evolution be stopped.

I wonder how many Chinese ideas are in the new charter?

The parliamentary system, well tested over the centuries around the world, offers the ability to resolve crises if the elite sector is clever and calm enough to allow it to work properly. Democracy can never mature here amid constant calls for "good middlemen" from outside Parliament to solve the problems.

And that is about the size of it. You may not like those elected but that can change in the next election by the majority vote.

Historically around the world oppression and tyranny from military leaders has often lead to a civil uprising. We've already witnessed violence on the streets of Bangkok and unless things change dramatically here then civil war is on the cards.

So they are trying to keep the current PM or one of his ilk . Two articles I've read on here today have taken away my hope that Thailand would change for the better in the future

What is democracy?

In the ASEAN member states the majority have the same government for more than 10 years and some of them since independence.

This would be difficult to achieve in West European democracies and when it happened the (elected) people in power lost contact with reality...such as in Sweden during the 1970ies.

There is the "Juan Peron" and " Ferdinand Marcos" kind of democracy : both presidents and their parties won (bought?) every election in which they participated, but they emptied their countries to a state of bankruptcy.

There is the Chinese kind of democracy with the power being a monopoly of the CP...but this is a party of 80 million members and not at all a family run affair as it in North Korea and other "democracies". There are also very wise time limits on the top jobs in the government.

Nothing is perfect but a good democracy is for instance the UK where the wish of the Cameron government to join the US in the civil war of Syria was voted down not only by the opposition party members but also by members of the ruling Conservative and Libdem parties. Again nothing is perfect but obviously the UK members of parliament were not elected thanks to "sponsoring" by the Prime Minister....

Actually, when thailand is in its abnormal state of thai democracy the lower house selects the PM, not the people.

We will allow you to choose the PM, but only if you choose the right one.

Poorly reasoned editorial. Whether the PM is an MP doesn't make the process any more democratic. It still is an indirect election of the PM by Parliament. Only a direct election of the PM would be purely democratic.

Rarely does this happen.. Even in the USA they have the electoral college system.

It's all over but the crying. The newest charter is not written yet, but the mold seems to have made months ago.

And the tragedy is that this is a temporary fix, and a treating of symptoms rather than causes.

The cycle is not over by any means, nor can cultural evolution be stopped.

I wonder how many Chinese ideas are in the new charter?

The more I hear about it, it seems like Hong Kong lite

Sondhi must be rejoicing. They are his type of people

Phrayut is here to stay...Orders from China.

This is technically incorrect...it seems that the present PM was chosen by the military without regard to the people...the next one will likely be chosen in the same way...

Get rid of the party list form of election. Make each candidate work for and then get voted in on their merits. Then there will be some form of democracy wrt to electing the PM.

"Thailand has had many non-elected premiers in its history, but only under the rule of authoritarian figures, primarily from the military."

And so that will continue. By this provision the military has created Sustainability in Totalitarianism, ironically on its Unsustainability of the Economy.