Premier plan on wrong tack

Premier plan on wrong tack

The proposal to modify the parliamentary system so that the prime minister and cabinet members are elected directly by voters has provoked extensive debate that it does not deserve.

The idea, prepared by the National Reform Council (NRC) committee on political reform, is visceral. It does not conform to any established theories of governance. It does not appear to be able to solve the problems it is intended to. Most important of all, its application is likely to generate quandaries that will be even more difficult to tackle than those already in existence.

There is a genuine question as to why the NRC, which must deliberate a large number of reform issues and hundreds of laws, has to waste time considering it.

In presenting the proposal, the NRC committee headed by former People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) leader Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, argued that having the executive branch directly accountable to voters will strengthen the government and reduce its dependence on members of parliament.

Under the proposal, the prime minister is not authorised to dissolve the House, while the legislators can't file for a censure debate. If MPs want to review the government's performance, they must do so through a political court.

While it is plausible that the proposed system would produce a stable government or at least one that is likely to complete its term, this sole benefit will come at a high cost.

For a start, with both the parliament and executive branch equally accountable to voters, their built-in interconnectedness and mutual accountability will be lost.

Mr Sombat said his new system will increase checks and balances that are not there in the current parliamentary democracy. It's difficult to imagine how the review mechanism will be engendered when the two organisations are designed to function independently from each other.

The so-called political court to be set up specifically to let MPs scrutinise the government appears redundant.

There are many questions as well about how the new court will function.

Will it offer a specialised trial, like the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Office, which has only one sitting and no appeals? Who will decide what cases will proceed to the political court?

It seems the political reform committee that came up with the direct election of the premier proposal was so bent on tackling the single issue of government stability that it failed to consider myriad other problems that have brought forth the political conflicts plaguing the country.

While political stability is one key factor for a peaceful nation, NRC member Prasarn Maruekapitak was right when he said it does not hold the key to solving the country's political problems.

Thailand has experienced so many political conflicts not because the government is not strong but because it is too strong and too powerful.

The national administration has always served as the hub of everything. It is where interests of all sorts are concentrated.

That is why interest groups have to compete with one another to attain that singular seat of power. That is why conflicts are always bound to arise.

Having the premier and cabinet elected directly will not help divest that power. Instead, it will enhance their centralised authority.

It's not the direction that political reform is supposed to take.

It's a pity the political reform committee has come up with what appears to be a half-baked proposal. The NRC must demand a better, more well-thought-out plan.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT