New Thai Charter: CDC pushes 'candidate without party' agenda

[webfact]

NEW CHARTER
CDC pushes 'candidate without party' agenda
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION

Individuals will be allowed to stand under 'political groups'; new articles indicate drafters' interest in public engagement

BANGKOK: -- THE CONSTITUTION Drafting Committee (CDC) yesterday added a new article that gives citizens the right to form "political groups" so that their representatives can run for elections.

Under this article, electoral candidates do not need to be members of a political party.

The newly drafted article states that "citizens have political rights according to the constitution. They have rights to form political parties or political groups in order to pursue their political agenda, and to organise political activities, in accordance to constitutional monarchy rules as stated in this charter".

Charter drafters will see their proposal on political reform come true with this article as it allows an individual to run in elections without having to be under the banner of a political party. The CDC has been discussing this proposal since last month.

However, politicians are slamming this proposal, arguing that such a move will only open the door to politicians' parliamentary votes being "bought", that party discipline will be damaged and that money would become an important factor at the highest level of decision making.

CDC spokesman General Lertrat Ratanavanich, however, pointed out that these independent individuals would be running under a "political group" and that this term has been clearly inserted in the article.

"In the future, we can establish a political group in order to have public representatives run as electoral candidates. The rules [for political groups] will not be as rigid as those for political parties, as the purpose of this is so people can express their political agenda and organise political activities," he explained.

Right to publIc welfare

The committee has also drafted another article, which will promote citizens' right to public welfare - an issue that has never been covered by previous charters.

The article states that "citizens have rights for continuous and equal access to public welfare that is administrated, and must be regularly maintained, by the government".

Lertrat explained that the term "welfare" covered a wide range of state provisions that include healthcare, transportation, water supply and even children's playgrounds.

Charter drafters are clearly showing an increasing willingness to boost public engagement in politics, as they have drafted an article that empowers citizens to regulate and examine administrative officials.

The article states that "citizens have the right to submit their complaints and take part in the examination of public administration officials' work that might affect their rights and freedom. It is also citizen's rights to briefly receive the examination result".

The content of this article is consistent with the CDC's proposal last month that a mechanism needs to be created to strengthen the citizen sector as an effective body to maintain checks and balance within the country's political structure.

The charter drafters had proposed the establishment of a "citizens assembly" at both national |and local levels, in which one of their key roles would be to investigate |and examine the conduct of key government officials, including the prime minister, cabinet members and MPs.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/CDC-pushes-candidate-without-party-agenda-30252006.html


-- The Nation 2015-01-16

[BSJ]

I don't see why an individual who wishes to be a member of parliament needs to form a party to be entitled to run in an election. Doesn't make sense to me.

[JAG]

Will there be a chapter 2, granting certain "candidates without a party" rights to a seat without the irksome need to be elected?

[FangFerang]

I like this idea. In previous elections, the requirement of belonging to a party also made the creation of a party an expensive, complicated, drawn-out, exclusionary process. I like the idea that the two parties (the opposing power groups) will not be allowed a monopoly any longer once elected.

I know they hate this. They even sent out a red herring in response. "However, politicians are slamming this proposal, arguing that such a move will only open the door to politicians' parliamentary votes being "bought", that party discipline will be damaged and that money would become an important factor at the highest level of decision making." Bold face mine.

Ok, lets take this bold by bold-face note. Politicians by nature consolidate power, and this suggested amendment de-consolidates power. Tough titties. Open the door to parliamentary votes being "bought". Um, that's the current system anyway -- the real objection is that it will require negotiations and quid pro quo law drafting. Again, tough titties. Party discipline will be damaged...really, the meaning behind this phrase is that the tyranny of the few over the group is directly threatened, and will allow individual party members to disagree with the leadershiup and even the majority of their peers within a party. This tyranny should be damaged, and even put in a coma. Money would become a factor in the highest level of decision making. Would become? Would become?! Money is a factor in every high level decision, no exceptions. Um, that's the current system anyway -- the real objection is that it will require negotiations and quid pro quo law drafting. Tough titties all around.

I respect a balance of powers in a way that is unique. There are always people seeking power. The best we can do is to contain them, by limiting their scope of control. Both groups of power brokers here, red and yellow, should all be ashamed of themselves.

Edited January 16, 2015 by FangFerang

[rickirs]

"Under this article, electoral candidates do not need to be members of a political party."

CDC is welcome to offer these kinds of articles. But didn't it just recently announced it was going to adopt Germany's Multi-Member Party electoral system and even had a meeting with the German ambassador to fanfare that decision? Now it takes a direction completely opposite of the MMP. It seems like every existing democratic system that the CDC likes, it is somehow forced to create loopholes to bypass the purpose of those systems.

What the CDC needs is a democratic system that really amounts to a totalitarian State. But North Korea doesn't have an ambassador in Bangkok.