Once the hope of strong democracy, Election Commission fails some tests

Story by MONGKOL BANGPRAPA

Sunday's election may settle the debate over whether the Election Commission is strong and independent, or a paper tiger as many democracy advocates and academics have charged after a string of cases in which the EC worked slowly and raised questions of negligence.

Members of the current, second team of election commissioners have been attacked since they took office following the 2001 elections. Criticism began over the process of their selection by the Senate and has continued over questionable decisions, as well as the EC's refusal to investigate allegations of abuse of state power to affect elections.

Activists, academics and the media have been among those who questioned the very origin of this panel of commissioners. Allegations arose that the notes of some politicians, recommending certain commissioners for selection, were distributed during a senatorial meeting.

In the first public act after the EC panel was named, the chosen chairman Gen Sirin Thoopklam was forced to resign because he lacked qualifications required by law. Although critics tried to restart the selection process, the controversy was defused when Gen Sirin stepped down and was replaced by Pol Gen Wassana Permlarp, the current EC chief.

The appointment of former adviser to Rassadorn Party Adm Kohlak Charoenrook as election commissioner was also questioned since he had political affiliations which some believed would affect the commission's impartiality. Even Pol Gen Wassana admitted Adm Kohlak's qualifications were against the law, and blamed officials for not checking before approving the appointment.

Assadang Panikkabutr, a political scientist and former acting rector of Ramkhamhaeng University, said the current EC team has been scrutinised ever since, because of continuing, questionable decisions. Mr Assadang said the EC had raised suspicions of political interference by its "strange order" such as the ban on publication of opinion polls in some elections, and the refusal to investigate the alleged use of state power by members of the government to favour Thai Rak Thai during election campaigns.

The EC ban on the publication of public opinion polls continues to be criticised. EC secretary-general Pol Maj-Gen Ekkachai Waroonprapa has explained by citing laws that voting must be done in secret and not influenced by anyone or any event. Still, he admitted the ban was inspired by complaints from some political parties whose popularity was lower in the polls.

Critics note the EC failed to bar the use of state-owned media by the Thai Rak Thai-led government for electioneering, even after charges by the Opposition it was using the TV, radio and other outlets to seek votes both directly and indirectly. Instead, commissioner Gen Charupat Ruangsuwan ruled the prime minister and cabinet members were acting legally and could use the state-run media for their work as usual.

When asked about the five-hour live broadcast to the nation of the recent cabinet meeting in Chiang Rai, during which Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra wore a jacket emblazoned with his Thai Rak Thai Party logo, Gen Charupat replied that MPs could run election campaigns, unlike senators. But he made no reference to election laws that require the EC to ensure equal airtime for all parties contesting an election.

Saraburi Sen Banthoon Krirkpitthaya, addressing a seminar called "Keep Watch on the EC: Independence and Fairness in the Election," said that guidelines and rules for selecting election commissioners should be amended to keep the procedures free of political control, because the EC was designed as an independent agency with duties to monitor politicians.

"The previous (first) team of election commissioners dared to take action against violators, and was strong and not lenient, so all politicians were afraid of the EC," said. "My fellow senators and I agreed we couldn't sleep after learning we must testify to the EC, because it was like we were going to cold rooms.

"But we feel different with the current EC. Candidates for MP are not afraid of the EC, which has become a paper tiger. Politicians are not afraid because its enforcement of the law is not in line with the spirit of the constitution, and because its working style is passive rather than aggressive _ especially investigations. It just waits for information from provincial election panels, rather than send officials from Bangkok to look into complaints, even though vote buying was detected before the issuance of the royal decree" setting the election date, he added.

For examples, the senator said, the EC was slow and reactive to reports that Lower House candidates spent more than 1.5 million baht each for their election campaigns. The commission failed to send volunteers to watch and gather evidence such as campaign posters on the spot, something the first team of commissioners showed how to do.

The chairman of the EC says it is impossible to check all such illegal actions and vote-buying because of limited staff to monitor the roughly 1,000 people running for office. As a result, the EC gives preference to investigating complaints rather than instigating investigations.

Critics have alleged the EC has erred in requiring every party to name at least five candidates on its party election list. The EC was believed to fear there would be fewer than than 100 list MPs as required by the constitution, and parliament could not meet without the required number of constituency and party-list MPs if small parties fail to reach a 5% requirement of party list candidates.

All political parties agreed to the stipulation only after meeting with commissioner Parinya Nakchatri, who threatened to charge uncooperative parties with violating election law.

Critics also charged the EC was too slow in starting the advance-voting campaign. It got under way on Jan 6, which left just two days for advance voters to register. This may jeopardise the goal of a 70% national voter turnout.

Warin Thiamchamras, secretary to the PollWatch Foundation and a leader of the People's Network for Elections (P-Net), said the EC not only failed to take action on vote buying but also deprived many people of chances to join advance voting.

Somchai Srisuthiyakorn, former secretary to PollWatch Foundation, said it was hard for him to say the current election commissioners have freedom to work. Their selections were politically influenced and they were working like government officials by trying to finish election organising tasks rather than ensuring decent elections, Mr Somchai said.

Parinya Thewanaruemitrkul, a lecturer at Thammasat University's Faculty of Law, feels the EC commissioners lack independence, but still have the power to tell who will be the next prime minister.

The former student activist said he did not trust the EC and wanted all commissioners to prove their fairness.

The EC faces a tough battle to prove it is neutral and efficient, does not depend too much on police and local bodies in monitoring Sunday's vote, and dares to red-card and yellow-card candidates violating the election laws.

If it fails to build public confidence, the EC will face increasing calls for changes in the selection guidelines to assure future commissions are truly independent.