Don’t ignore people’s vote

It’s beyond question that the draft charter provides the possibility of an unelected outsider becoming the prime minister. The existence of this clause, however, is meant both in spirit and in practice to serve only as a contingency measure for the country to find a solution in case of an administrative deadlock. It should never be taken as standard procedure.

The future of democracy in Thailand is shaky enough with the draft charter stipulating an entirely appointed Senate whose numbers account for half of the 500-strong House of Representatives which may also join in a vote to select the prime minister.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling on Wednesday for the Constitution Drafting Committee to amend the draft charter so that appointed senators may join members of parliament in proposing a motion to suspend the rule requiring prime ministerial candidates to come from lists prepared in advance by political parties is seen as increasing the opportunity for the next premier to be an outsider.

Following the decision, speculation has become rife that the amendment will likely result in the current PM Prayut Chan-o-cha being selected to serve in the top job after the election.

It does not help that Gen Prayut has never ruled out the possibility that he will return to power despite his vow not to run in an election. While the prospect may be delightful to supporters of the premier and his military regime, it does not bode well for the country in trying to find its way back to democracy.

By the doctrine’s yardstick, the draft charter may be flawed in several areas but it is still rooted in the principle that power must come from the people who vote to choose their representatives to run the government.

Since the military regime promised that a new election will be held next year, the onus is on politicians and representatives to uphold the principle and prove to the public that they can work within the standard procedures and not cause such a deadlock as to trigger any contingency measures.

The Constitutional Court’s decision may be interpreted as augmenting the chance for political appointees in the Senate to create a situation in which an unelected PM will become possible, even inevitable, but it is also viewed as just an attempt to make all the rules and functions of the draft charter consistent.

It must be noted that even though senators may be able to join the motion to waive the requirement that the PM must be selected from the party lists after the amendment, such a motion is only possible if MPs fail to vote to select a prime minister themselves.

Another important but much less discussed aspect of the Constitutional Court’s ruling is its opinion that senators will not be permitted to nominate a prime minister. The court’s rationale is clearly on the side of democratic principles, that the task of nominating and voting for the prime minister belongs to the people’s representatives and therefore should be kept off-limits to the appointed senators.

The road ahead is decidedly not easy for democracy lovers, not with the military regime putting into place long-term administrative mechanisms such as the reform steering assembly and legal frameworks including more than 100 orders from Section 44 that will govern the country’s development for the next decades, politically, economically as well as socially.

The challenge has to be met, however. In the case of the latest constitutional amendment, it is the politicians who will have to chart a new course and demonstrate to the public that they can make a tradition of the prime minister being an elected member of the parliament and not allow an exception to become the rule.

The road ahead is decidedly not easy for democracy lovers.