Thai opinion: Country trapped in tunnel vision over PM's selection

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
Country trapped in tunnel vision over PM's selection
Tulsathit Taptim

Must the prime minister be a member of Parliament? Yes. Does it really matter? (Will it help Thailand?) No.

BANGKOK: -- Is it more "democratic" for a country's Constitution to require that the prime minister come from the ranks of elected MPs? Maybe, and maybe not.

To clarify the answer to the first question, a constitutional requirement that the prime minister be elected at constituency level makes people feel "secure". Elections signify "democracy", and hence such a requirement has the same effect as minimum qualifications in a job vacancy. We know a bachelor's degree doesn't guarantee a new recruit will be successful in the job, but we also know that the chances of failure are greater if the educational criteria are done away with entirely.

In the years when General Prem Tinsulanonda was prime minister, Thai democracy was dubbed "half-baked" because he didn't need to be an MP. But, to clarify the answer to the second question, here's the list of prime ministers who came after him and were elected MPs: Chatichai Choonhavan, Chuan Leekpai, Banharn Silapa-archa, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, Thaksin Shinawatra, Samak Sundaravej, Somchai Wongsawat, Abhisit Vejjajiva and Yingluck Shinawatra.

You don't need to be a historian to know what happened to them. Coups dethroned Chatichai, Thaksin and Yingluck. Samak was ousted by the Constitutional Court, a cruel fate linked to the political crisis. Somchai also suffered a legal clampdown that dissolved his political party. By comparison, Chuan, Banharn and Chavalit endured less traumatic exits. Abhisit suffered blood being poured in front of his house, attacks on his limousine, and protesters blockading downtown Bangkok for weeks before he decided to launch a now infamous crackdown. Then came an election that saw his government ousted in shame.

So, the rule that a prime minister must be an MP makes everyone feel "secure" - except prime ministers themselves. It looks nice on paper, but does it solve the problems that plague Thai politics? The answer is an emphatic "No". What happened to Chatichai, Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and Yingluck all but proves the point.

Now, the third question: Will Thailand's Constitution be "more democratic" if it requires that the prime minister be an MP first?

The answer is that such a charter will "appear" more democratic, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will actually be more democratic. Democracy means a lot more than having a prime minister whom people in, say, a Bangkok constituency, have elected as an MP.

The good thing about such a requirement is that it keeps alive the virtues of elections. If someone aspires to take the country's helm, he or she must face an election first. It forces everyone - whether they like it or not - to taste what it's like to have to please the voters and to be grilled by opponents during the election campaign.

Then again, if that requirement can be erased or rewritten overnight, what's the point? In addition, we have the issue of "empowerment" to ponder. Is a Parliament that must choose a prime minister from among its own members "more democratic" than a Parliament that can choose "just anyone" as PM?

That question is, of course, a rebuttal worthy of a lawyer. We all know that not just "anyone" can be prime minister. To rise unelected to leadership, a candidate must be backed by the real powers-that-be. In this sense, the requirement for the prime minister to be an MP is a last line of defence, no matter how easily penetrated.

The real issue here is, what constitutes genuine democracy? In this light, our focus on the origin of the prime minister needs to be widened to include other factors.

If the prime minister is truly accountable, faces efficient checks and balances, and works for the country's best interests, who cares where he or she comes from? Those factors should ease citizens' worries and offer assurance that the overall system will offer good governance anyway.

If the beginning is right the end can hardly be wrong, goes an old saying. But this doesn't make the case for MP prime ministers. Getting the beginning right is not just about the prime minister, but about the system he or she works under. An "elected" prime minister who works in an environment that makes him or her virtually untouchable won't foster accountability or democracy.

So, let's go back to our original questions. Must Parliament elect prime ministers from among its own members? Yes. Will it really matter/would it help Thailand? Yes, but only if the requirement is supplemented by measures to ensure good, accountable governance. Is it more "democratic" for a country's Constitution to rule that the prime minister must first be an elected MP? It depends.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Country-trapped-in-tunnel-vision-over-PMs-selectio-30255720.html


-- The Nation 2015-03-11

[BSJ]

It seems like the logical thing to do is ask the voters what they want in a referendum......but.....

[halloween]

Playing his normal tricks, he slides around the question of whether MPs should be allowed to accept payment other than their MP allowance. As long as MPs can legally accept bribes, even those disguised as "party" salaries, and the PM is a party list candidate, the position is for sale to the highest bidder.

Hockey, in Oz, is suing over a headline "Treasurer for Sale" denying he has accepted electoral funding. How would he justify accepting monthly payments from an off-shore criminal?

[jerojero]

Tunnel syndrome.... Follow me or else.

[toybits]

This is like building sand castles with a bunch of bullies all around ready to kick in that beautiful sand castle you just built.

[rametindallas]

If the rule was that the PM must be an elected MP first, then we wouldn't have been burdened with the lovely but totally incompetent Ms Yingluck. Having to get enough support from an electorate is a screening process that shouldn't be overlooked nor bypassed.

[cumgranosalum]

It's not just the one issue of the Pm it what comes with that - it is the question of how many unelected people will be in the Upper house as well.

It would allow a general to be appointed PM by any government formed after an "election" - it also reduces the prospects of large cohesive parties ad reduces the power of any elected members making the subordinate to the appointed members.

the solution is not to allow an undemocratic system for appointing PMs, the solution is to make sure they don't get deposed in a coup but by election.

Edited March 11, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[halloween]

It's not just the one issue of the Pm it what comes with that - it is the question of how many unelected people will be in the Upper house as well.

It would allow a general to be appointed PM by any government formed after an "election" - it also reduces the prospects of large cohesive parties ad reduces the power of any elected members making the subordinate to the appointed members.

the solution is not to allow an undemocratic system for appointing PMs, the solution is to make sure they don't get deposed in a coup but by election.

And the answer to that is stopping criminals buying their way into office for their personal enrichment and benefit.

[smutcakes]

It's not just the one issue of the Pm it what comes with that - it is the question of how many unelected people will be in the Upper house as well.

It would allow a general to be appointed PM by any government formed after an "election" - it also reduces the prospects of large cohesive parties ad reduces the power of any elected members making the subordinate to the appointed members.

the solution is not to allow an undemocratic system for appointing PMs, the solution is to make sure they don't get deposed in a coup but by election.

And the answer to that is stopping criminals buying their way into office for their personal enrichment and benefit.

And the ultimate answer is that the only way to stop it is have police, independent agencies and judiciary who aren't up to their neck in it themselves...

[Srikcir]

It is the CDC that is trapped in tunnel vision to avoid having a meaningful election of a PM.

Thus far, the CDC/NRC has not found an elected PM who is not a member of parliament in any of the electoral systems that it expressed as models for Thailand. For example, Germany, UK, and Canada.

That may be due to the fact that as Head of State, a PM must provide legislative leadership to parliament to pass laws supporting the PM's political agenda for the nation. Without parliamentary coalition building, a PM not being a member of parliament will have little of no political support. That would effectively neutralize a proactive PM. But maybe that is the intent of the CDC - make that PM so weak as not to disturb the legislation already established by the Junta. The Junta has expressed frequent horror with an elected powerful PM who can set legislative agendas that could ultimately challenge again the Junta's political agenda.

[cumgranosalum]

It is the CDC that is trapped in tunnel vision to avoid having a meaningful election of a PM.

Thus far, the CDC/NRC has not found an elected PM who is not a member of parliament in any of the electoral systems that it expressed as models for Thailand. For example, Germany, UK, and Canada.

That may be due to the fact that as Head of State, a PM must provide legislative leadership to parliament to pass laws supporting the PM's political agenda for the nation. Without parliamentary coalition building, a PM not being a member of parliament will have little of no political support. That would effectively neutralize a proactive PM. But maybe that is the intent of the CDC - make that PM so weak as not to disturb the legislation already established by the Junta. The Junta has expressed frequent horror with an elected powerful PM who can set legislative agendas that could ultimately challenge again the Junta's political agenda.

PMs are not head of State - they are MINISTERS to the King whi is head of state in Thailand.

[cumgranosalum]

It's not just the one issue of the Pm it what comes with that - it is the question of how many unelected people will be in the Upper house as well.

It would allow a general to be appointed PM by any government formed after an "election" - it also reduces the prospects of large cohesive parties ad reduces the power of any elected members making the subordinate to the appointed members.

the solution is not to allow an undemocratic system for appointing PMs, the solution is to make sure they don't get deposed in a coup but by election.

And the answer to that is stopping criminals buying their way into office for their personal enrichment and benefit.

No - that may be a symptom of a poor system but it is not a root cause.

[Laughing Gravy]

It's not just the one issue of the Pm it what comes with that - it is the question of how many unelected people will be in the Upper house as well.

It would allow a general to be appointed PM by any government formed after an "election" - it also reduces the prospects of large cohesive parties ad reduces the power of any elected members making the subordinate to the appointed members.

the solution is not to allow an undemocratic system for appointing PMs, the solution is to make sure they don't get deposed in a coup but by election.

And the answer to that is stopping criminals buying their way into office for their personal enrichment and benefit.

You could also outlaw coups and put those who start them on trial. That would also be a solution to the above. Although I believe there is more chance of pigs flying. I must say though, it seems lately there are a lot of articles on 'why democracy isn't the way forward for Thailand. I would even go to saying it is biased towards this. prompting what is too come. Just to say that there must be accountability from the PM down. If not then they are just... well another Dship. There was me thinking that the reason for the last coup was to give power back to the people.