Let's entertain the idea that's generating so much talk and controversy around the country, the amendment of the law on how senators are selected. If we are to change a law, there ought to be a benchmark, and that benchmark should be the principles of democracy.
A hallmark of democracy is a built-in mechanism for checks and balances. As such, the different branches of government must be, at least on paper, independent of each other. True, nothing is ever completely independent and there are always shady dealings behind the scenes to muddle said independence, but that's the way of life. At the very least, we ought to set forth a system of good governance to minimise the shady bits.
On the surface, the Pheu Thai Party's proposal that all senators should be elected is very sound and democratic. But take a look at the clause where families of MPs and former MPs would be eligible to run for senator posts, and we see dirty hands at work. This does not spell independence and good governance. Rather, this spells family business and a lot of hanky-panky.
The number of MPs elected is proportionate to the population of each district and province. That's fine. So let's have two senators from each province, all elected and none appointed. However, those running for senator should not, must not, be family members of MPs or former MPs. This is to prevent the expansion of the already endemic political family dynasties which have bogged down Thai politics for far too long. In fact, those running for senator should not have any political party affiliations at all. Let's tailor the law to ensure that senators are independent of political partisanship.
There should be two senators from each province, all elected by the people, none members of political families or partisans of political parties; on paper, an independent body with built-in checks and balances. Any shady business will depend on the integrity of individual senators and the wisdom of the voting populace.
There are 76 provinces and the administrative capital of Bangkok, so at two apiece that makes a total of 154 senators. That's enough. The length and number of terms allowed is up for discussion.
But why stop with reforming the Upper House? What is this deal with party-listed MPs? Buy one, get one free or midnight madness sales? It's like wedding souvenirs _ nice thought, but really who needs them or wants them? We're just here to make toasts and get drunk.
All MPs should be elected and the number should be proportionate to the population of each district and province.
So we have 500 MPs, each serving four-year terms. As for the endemic political family dynasties in parliament, doing away with the party list would help to put a check on this to some extent. Otherwise, let the people decide through their votes.
What about Constitution Court judges? Who appoints them? The answer is in the 2007 constitution, and it can be quite problematic. Let's simplify: It should be the prime minister, with the advice and consent of the Senate, not the parliament. Judges shouldn't come from elections, because in practical terms that would be an overdose of elections for any one country.
As well, as they represent the integrity of the law of the land, the selection of judges should not be up to the whims of the people, because then they would be partial to popular sentiments, emotions that are subjective and unreliable. Instead, judges should answer only, and directly, to the letter of the law, which is objective and certain. But still, somebody has to select the judges.
The prime minister should make the appointment because he or she has earned the right as the democratically elected leader of the nation. But the power should not be exclusively his or hers, because that would be too much power concentrated in the hands of one person and make the judges, and hence the highest court of the land, subordinate to that one person.
The parliament should not be involved with the selection of judges, because MPs are political party affiliates and we should limit the power of political parties. So it follows that the Senate should be the house to advise and give consent to the prime minister on the selection of judges, as in theory it is independent of political family dynasties and parties. So we have nine justices, and among themselves they may select the chief justice.
Meanwhile, the prime minister is elected by the 500 MPs in parliament, and serves a four-year term. This is fine.
The executive, the legislative and the judicial are set up to ensure good governance in a democracy. However, in many democracies around the world, including Thailand, legislations have been tweaked and twisted in order to corrupt the independence of each branch.
Pheu Thai's proposal to change the way senators are selected is sound and democratic in principle. However, the clause to include family members of MPs and former MPs exemplifies an attempt to corrupt good governance. It's not dissimilar in intent or purpose to the law which allows for appointed senators.
The intent and purpose is to establish a democratic dictatorship where institutions are exploited to grant exclusive power to a single political party, a single individual or a single ''invisible hand''.
To recognise political intent, we must look at the benchmark. If the benchmark is democracy, then family members of MPs and former MPs or political party affiliates have no business in the Senate. The intent must be to establish good governance. If the benchmark is democratic dictatorship, then it's a family and party orgy in the Senate. Hence, the intent is simply to gain power and control.
This isn't singling out Pheu Thai for condemnation. In the past and the present, the system has been tweaked and twisted to corrupt good governance anyway. The purpose of this article is simply to say, Pheu Thai, please don't try to pull one over the people. We expect better things from you. Thailand deserves better things from you. Make your supporters proud. Prove your opponents wrong. Correct the wrongs; don't perpetuate more wrongs.
To implement the suggestions in this article, we change the laws ahead of the next elections, for both the parliament and the Senate. Implementing the suggestions could be problematic, however, where the Constitution Court is concerned. To prevent unnecessary conflicts, let the incumbents serve out their terms; most don't have that many years left anyway. Timing is a matter of sound strategy. Then the prime minister and the Senate can bicker and lobby over the next appointments.
Of course, over the next decade, the prime minister is likely to nominate Pheu Thai-friendly judges. Why wouldn't he or she? All governments select friendly judges. But the Senate can provide the check and balance mechanism, in theory at least. If in a decade we end up with all nine judges being Pheu Thai-friendly, well, there's no one to blame but the Democrat Party.
There you have it, an outline for the executive, legislative and judicial branches, with built-in checks and balances to ensure good democratic governance. In practical terms however, the system _ any system _ will only be as good, or as bad, as the people elected and the people who elect them.
Contact Voranai Vanijaka via email at voranaiv@bangkokpost.co.th.