We cannot endorse plan for election

We cannot endorse plan for election

Usually, Thai newspapers and media do not endorse political party leaders or parties campaigning in elections under our parliamentary system. Certainly not the Bangkok Post.

One of the reasons is that overall there is a strong belief that our political parties, and many individual candidates and MPs, were driven by vested interests. For decades Thai governments have been plagued with instability in the sense that they've never completed their full term in office.

The horse-trading that has followed elections to form coalition governments and cabinet portfolios comes across to many as the sharing of the spoils. At first things are hunky-dory. But over time conflicts over vested interests emerge. And if they cannot be resolved, coalition break-ups erupt.

Also, words like Liberal, Labour, Republican or Democrat did not figure in the Thai political dictionary or have any significant or substantial meaning. That's why newspapers here rarely endorse political parties or their leaders.

The 1997 charter sought to give the prime minister and cabinet greater executive power. Enter Thaksin Shinawatra and his approach to the electorate, policies and promises — and the pendulum swung the other way. His government was the first to complete its term in office and his party, despite transformations and name changes, won successive elections.

But now things will become more interesting if the proposal for direct elections of the prime minister and cabinet members gains traction and finally ends up signed and approved in the new charter.

The National Legislative Assembly proposes that the prime ministerial candidate and prospective cabinet members who do not have to be political party members must gain 35% of the national vote. If they do not, then there is a run-off between the first- and second-placed teams.

Apart from direct elections of the executive, the new charter is expected to stipulate that parties must state clearly how they will achieve or implement their campaign promises and that their policies do not cause irreparable damage to the country.

One thing that will happen if this proposal becomes reality is that there will be a need for greater scrutiny of the qualifications of the prime ministerial and cabinet candidates. Unlike in the past, the people will see up front and centre the choices for the executive. They will ask: Who are these people? What are their backgrounds? What have they achieved? And it's the job of the media to provide answers.

One could argue that this is a positive result of the proposal. It allows for more clarity so the people can make a better choice in choosing their leaders and the direction of the country. But there is also a flip side.

In past elections, we've had dozens of political parties. Many of them were made up of people who were genuine in their intentions, but were not serious contenders because they lacked the political and financial muscle or a track record that impressed or gained public attention. They literally fell under the radar.

Still, sifting through the information and campaign promises is a challenging task for voters. While more information and greater scrutiny is a good thing, it could lead to confusion and information overload.

But there is also another reason why we need to be cautious with this proposal. I would have to agree with Abhisit Vejjajiva's view that "there appears to be a belief that a separation of power between the executive branch and legislative branch helps promote checks and balances in the system. A complete separation of power will encourage the executive branch to cite the legitimacy of its power from a direct election to reduce accountability."

I would put it more simply — this proposal could lead a directly elected prime minister and cabinet to simply say: "I come from elections." There's no guarantee that this approach does not guarantee a change in mindset that because I am directly elected by the people, I do not have to listen to the voices of others.

So as things stand at the moment, it is unlikely that we will be endorsing prime ministerial or cabinet candidates under this proposed approach of direct elections.


Pichai Chuensuksawadi is editor-in-chief of Post Publishing. Contact him at pichai@bangkokpost.co.th.

Pichai Chuensuksawadi

Editor-in-Chief & Bangkok Post Editor

He is an Editor-in-Chief at Post Publishing Public. He also served as Editor at The Post Publishing Plc from 1994 to 2002 and Special Assistant to the ASEAN Secretary General Dato'Ajit Singh from 1993 to 1994. He serves as the Chairman of The Bangkok Post Provident Fund. He is Chairman of The Bangkok Post Foundation and Phud Hong Leper Foundation. He is a Member of The Press Council of Thailand. He is a Board Member of IFRA. He is Chairman of the Organising Committee, IFRA Asia Pacific. He has BA in Journalism from Queensland University, Australia in 1979 and BA. Political Science from James Cook University of North Queensland University, Australia in 1976.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (3)