Thai politics: Charter drafters' dilemma - how to justify non-elected senators?

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Charter drafters' dilemma - how to justify non-elected senators?
ATTAYUTH BOOTSRIPOOM

BANGKOK: -- THE Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) has hinted that in the new charter it is writing, senators will not be directly elected or appointed. Members of the Senate will instead take office through "indirect election".

The drafters explained that elected senators often are not independent of political influence - a fact that is undeniable. When you contest elections, you certainly cannot avoid being involved in politics. But through election, senators are "connected" to the people and they can claim that they act in the name of their voters, and not someone else.

Appointed senators have no connection with the people, and they are often suspected of lacking neutrality or having hidden agenda. However, appointed senators are mostly free from political influence and there is a better chance of getting senators with satisfactory qualifications through appointment.

The constitution drafters have attempted to persuade people to believe that mixing election and appointment will not help. They said that having elected and appointed senators in the same chamber was like putting fish of different types together and they would never blend in with each other. This was proven in the Upper House elected under the previous constitution of 2007.

It is likely the charter drafters will opt for indirect election of senators - which seems to be a mixture of the two methods (direct election and appointment). An initial idea calls for people in different professional groups to elect their representatives to serve as senators. A good point with indirect election is that senators come from various professions and there is high likelihood of getting proficient and competent senators. And, in theory, Senate members elected this way can claim to represent the people.

However, the question is whether those senators will really be free from political influence. Many professional groups are connected to politics to different degrees. And in fact, senators elected this way represent interest groups, not the electorates in general.

The Senate has three main powers - screening legislation passed by the House of Representatives, appointing and removing members of independent organisations, and impeaching political office holders.

A dominant argument for elected senators is that the power of impeaching political office holders, who are elected by their electorates, should be given to people who are also elected. Some people may argue that judges are not elected and they have the power to punish elected politicians. That is another matter. Punishment ordered by a court is part of justice proceedings, but impeachment is a political process.

The constitution drafters appear to view elected senators as a problem, and they are attempting to find legitimacy for not electing senators. They have thus come up with the idea of depriving non-elected senators of the power to impeach political office holders. They argue that without the impeachment power, senators do not need to be elected.

But, in fact, senators do have another important power - in appointing and impeaching members of independent organisations. Those organisations played a key role in political changes over recent years and they still maintain power over the political arena. The Constitutional Court is empowered to remove political office holders. The National Anti-Corruption Commission has the power to bring political office holders to court. And the Election Commission is empowered to disqualify winning electoral candidates.

Non-elected senators may be questioned if they still maintain the power of appointing members of those powerful independent organisations. Senators have a wide variety of powers. Depriving them of just one power will not answer the question, why they should not be elected.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Charter-drafters-dilemma--how-to-justify-non-elect-30273735.html


-- The Nation 2015-11-26

[eliotness]

Simple, all the government needs to do is point to the UK, the "cradle of democracy" who have had an unelected House of Lords for hundreds of years. Not as powerful now as it was in the not too distant past, but still there none the less.

[KimSamui]

Simple, all the government needs to do is point to the UK, the "cradle of democracy" who have had an unelected House of Lords for hundreds of years. Not as powerful now as it was in the not too distant past, but still there none the less.

This Is Thailand and the standards of right and wrong are not respected over personal views in quite the same way as per say the UK.

[oneday]

There is no way to justify it because it is anti-Democratic. If they put it in the Constitution it will be voted down in the referendum.

[Baerboxer]

Simple, all the government needs to do is point to the UK, the "cradle of democracy" who have had an unelected House of Lords for hundreds of years. Not as powerful now as it was in the not too distant past, but still there none the less.

Or Canada or Ireland.

From what Irish friends tell me, the selection process for Irish appointees is very good.

[eliotness]

Simple, all the government needs to do is point to the UK, the "cradle of democracy" who have had an unelected House of Lords for hundreds of years. Not as powerful now as it was in the not too distant past, but still there none the less.

This Is Thailand and the standards of right and wrong are not respected over personal views in quite the same way as per say the UK.

Nevertheless it's still a way for "the elite", be they Eton old boys or champagne socialists to ensure the status quo continues.

[tbthailand]

Charter drafters' dilemma - how to justify non-elected senators?

Article 44

[tbthailand]

The constitution drafters appear to view elected senators as a problem

let's be honest, they view everything "elected" as a problem...

[Srikcir]

Simple, all the government needs to do is point to the UK, the "cradle of democracy" who have had an unelected House of Lords for hundreds of years. Not as powerful now as it was in the not too distant past, but still there none the less.

The authority of the House of Lords is very restrictive compared to the proposed Thai Senate. Note also that the UK doesn't have a single constitutional document and yet, manages not ever to have had a military coup since the Magna Charter in 1215! Just no comparison between the UK and proposed Thai forms of government. Do the research please.

[Srikcir]

"idea calls for people in different professional groups to elect their representatives to serve as senators"

A completely unworkable and discriminatory idea, perfectly aligned for the autcracy!

I don't think there could be enough senators to adequately represent every professional group in Thailand aside from whatever defines a professional group.

Shall senators include tour guides, sex workers, housekeepers, beekeepers, garbage men, street vendors, human traffickers, restauranters, hoteliers, jet-ski operators, beach-bed operators, massuesses, entertainers, tv/movie actors, etc - you get the idea? Based on similar Five River/CDC discussions last year it is likely professional groups will be narrowly defined as highly educated, wealthy, military, civil service, etc. that will have a vested interest in controlling a people's government.

On the one hand CDC Chairman Meechai insists that every voter's vote must count for election of the parliament ministers and PM. But when it comes to proposed election of senators, autocracy must prevail. The glass wil be half empty when it comes to democracy, even Thai-style.

[eliotness]

Simple, all the government needs to do is point to the UK, the "cradle of democracy" who have had an unelected House of Lords for hundreds of years. Not as powerful now as it was in the not too distant past, but still there none the less.

The authority of the House of Lords is very restrictive compared to the proposed Thai Senate. Note also that the UK doesn't have a single constitutional document and yet, manages not ever to have had a military coup since the Magna Charter in 1215! Just no comparison between the UK and proposed Thai forms of government. Do the research please.

So what do you call Cromwell's action in sending in the soldiers to close the House of Commons ? In the recent past the House of Lords had significant veto powers. It is only since WW2 that things have changed. It's just that Thailand is a few hundred years behind.

[taony]

Elected senators often are not independent of political influence but unelected ones won't be!! Thai logic at its best!

[heybruce]

Simple, all the government needs to do is point to the UK, the "cradle of democracy" who have had an unelected House of Lords for hundreds of years. Not as powerful now as it was in the not too distant past, but still there none the less.

Or Canada or Ireland.

From what Irish friends tell me, the selection process for Irish appointees is very good.

Do the generals in Ireland call the shots, either overtly or from behind the scenes? If not, then I don't think it's a government the junta will allow in Thailand.