New charter provisions likely to spur historic changes in Thai politics

[webfact]

CONSTITUTION WATCH
New charter provisions likely to spur historic changes in Thai politics
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- NEW provisions that drafters added to the new charter yesterday will lead to historic changes in Thailand's electoral system by giving a "fair chance" to all political parties and groups of different sizes.

Provisions creating a mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system along with several other new electoral rules including an "open-list" system of voting for party-list MPs and allowing the introduction of "political groups" to contest elections were added under the Parliament section.

General Lertrat Ratanavanich, spokesman for the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), said "this is one of the most important changes in the election system in recent times".

Under the newly drafted section, the House of Representatives will have some 450 members, 250 of who will be constituency MPs and 200 to 220 party-list MPs.

Constituency MP candidates will compete under the single-winner, first-past-the-post rule, as per the 1997 constitution.

However, party-list MPs will have to undergo an "open-list" system, in which voters will be given the authority to influence the order in which candidates are listed.

Under this provision, voters will be able to choose their most preferred candidate, who will be listed according to the number of votes he or she can garner.

This system replaces the "closed-list" system, in which voters had no influence in a candidate's ranking.

The charter drafters' intention in introducing the open-list system is to create a mechanism for people to become more involved with the political parties they support, which in effect will cut down the influence and powers of party leaders and make parties more democratic.

Some CDC members raised concerns about implementation of the open-list rule, with one person saying that if for some reason only a small proportion of voters named their preferred candidate, then the resulting list may not truly reflect voters' choice of candidates.

But drafters eventually decided to go ahead with the open-list rule, though one pointed out that the goal should be shifted from creating strong, democratic political parties to creating a power mechanism for people in the affairs of political parties.

"Since 1978, there have been moves to create strong, democratic political parties - parties that have strong principles.

However, we failed in this," a CDC member said, before asking: "Can anybody name a single party that is truly democratic?"

Another provision also states that MP candidates can be members of political groups, derived from professional associations and foundations.

While discussing this provision, a CDC member said he did not wish to see different types of existing associations get involved in politics because they may subsequently lose support.

In the end, drafters decided that two types of associations - political and non-political - could be registered with the Interior Ministry.

The CDC's move to allow different political groups to run in elections is part of efforts to prevent future parliamentary dictatorship by offering new alternatives to voters, which would allow some seats to be taken from established parties.

This provision, along with the new MPP system, will most likely result in the creation of several medium-sized parties, and remove the opportunity for a single party to dominate the Parliament.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/New-charter-provisions-likely-to-spur-historic-cha-30254799.html


-- The Nation 2015-02-25

[halloween]

Why is there a need for any form of party list? In the past it was used by the rich to buy power, to install unelectable scum like Chalerm and other cronies, and as a reward for criminal activity.

[englishoak]

Sigh! As Bangkok pundit concluded in January

One of the purported advantages of mixed member systems is the balance they strike between attention to local concerns and connections versus party policies and national priorities. This is accomplished by combining the election of constituency MPs with the closed-list PR elections for party list seats. This is the norm in virtually every other mixed member system in the world. Thailand’s proposed change to OLPR would be a unique departure from this norm and likely undermine this balance. In the end, switching to OLPR removes much of the rationale for having a mixed member system in the first place.

[halloween]

Sigh! As Bangkok pundit concluded in January

One of the purported advantages of mixed member systems is the balance they strike between attention to local concerns and connections versus party policies and national priorities. This is accomplished by combining the election of constituency MPs with the closed-list PR elections for party list seats. This is the norm in virtually every other mixed member system in the world. Thailand’s proposed change to OLPR would be a unique departure from this norm and likely undermine this balance. In the end, switching to OLPR removes much of the rationale for having a mixed member system in the first place.

So sad isn't it, that that which could have advantages is abused so badly as to make it unworthwhile. Or don't you see the problems I raised as disadvantages?

[siampolee]

When will these people come to understand that the party list undermines Parliament and the electorate.

No votes, no seat .

[Thailand]

One step backward one more step backwards.

[Plowman]

Why is there a need for any form of party list? In the past it was used by the rich to buy power, to install unelectable scum like Chalerm and other cronies, and as a reward for criminal activity.

The party list boosts the Democrats seat count, that is why Abhisit changed the constitution and raised the number of party list seats prior to the 2011 election (still got his ass handed to him though).

Edited February 25, 2015 by Plowman

[Trouble]

For those of us who are unfamiliar with this type of election process, can someone tell me if the party list candidates are a national list or a geographically based list for each constituency, district, province, etc. I assume that in the closed list the party just picks the people it would like to reward and rank orders them allowing the party to determine who gets to be an MP based on that parties percentage of the election votes. In the open list system the electorate establishes the order. Seems to me that in a national list many voters would not even know much about the party list candidate.

Although it seems that a constituency based election for all 450 MP's is more democratic I am puzzled by how the party list MP's (closed or open list) might just cronies of the party and are put on the party list out of loyalty and swore allegiance to the party. Hope someone can explain this process to me.

[FangFerang]

As written, the changes seem to be self-defeating, by reallocating power in a somewhat suspicious manner that is seemingly obtuse.

Is this a precise change to make the changes imprecise, to reach a vague goal that cannot be reached by the method described, for reasons that are only coincidental to the preferred outcome?

That seems to be the gist of it to me.

Edited February 26, 2015 by FangFerang

[heybruce]

It appears that in response to the claim that the Thai people aren't smart enough for democracy (definitely not my claim) the CDC is making the election process more complicated.

I assume the intent is to make elected government as ineffective as possible by having elections that result in weak coalitions of parties and individuals. Just in case this fails they are also looking into making the Senate unelected and shifting power to the judiciary. This is the junta's vision of 'real democracy'.