The May 22 coup cooled down the political rhetoric and turned public attention to reform. This means different things to different people. The military regime under commander Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha launched the official reform movement, and appointed official bodies to work on it. But ideas have come from many sources. Inevitably, some suggestions for change will bubble to the top because they are obviously superior. Others will be briefly considered, found wanting and earn rejection.
Take the current topic of direct elections. The country was told last holiday weekend that a majority of the members of the National Reform Committee (NRC) charged with examining political reform believe the traditional system of choosing the top leaders should be trashed. In its place, a new system will favour direct, national election of all important leaders. This will cover not just the prime minister, but the entire cabinet.
One must hope this idea is quickly debated and dropped. Even in the summary, it sounds awkward at best, convoluted and self-defeating at worst.
It is notable that direct elections of top officials are almost always the feature of republics. The very definition of a parliamentary government includes the selection of the national executive by elected members of parliament.
The direct election of a national leader almost everywhere in the world is for a president or similar. No major country elects the prime minister, and every country with a parliamentary system has a lower house of the legislature which chooses the premier.
In countries where citizens vote directly for the leader, he becomes head of state, as well as government. In Thailand, the head of state is His Majesty the King.
The rather outlandish proposal for direct election of the prime minister was just the beginning of the NRC's current debate, however.
The political reform committee is supposedly ready to recommend the public also elect the cabinet. This proposal makes one wonder if the reform officials are actually serious. Consider the incredible problems involved.
Gen Prayut last August appointed one of the smallest cabinets in recent history. It has "only" 34 members, heading up 20 individual ministries and offices.
Unless the the political reform committee members have been misquoted, they want all 40 million or so voters to consider and choose — from among multiple candidates — the single person best suited to serve as the head of each government ministry, and then a deputy.
Even thoughtful, careful voters have a hard time selecting the best possible candidates in today's elections. Typically, they have to choose among three or four serious candidates for two or three posts — a local member of parliament, for example, and a party-list candidate.
How would it be possible for voters to sift through literally hundreds of candidates for dozens of jobs before an election? This is the question that must ultimately sink this proposal.
Even "high information" voters cannot possibly learn about dozens, let alone hundreds of candidates.
Elections for a cabinet would certainly be corrupt, exploited and ultimately meaningless. Honest, quiet candidates would be drowned out by advertising, election promises, outright bribery or a combination.
Any cabinet that emerged from this anarchy would be completely disunited, split from the prime minister and the members not in tune with each other.
One wonders if the political reform committee wants to force on the country a government without unity of purpose, personality or power. If not, then discard this proposal and move on to better reform proposals.