One of the Constitution Drafting Committee’s (CDC) core missions is to provide an institutional design to pave the way for national reconciliation.
Its recent decision to have the Senate fully selected raises deep concerns that the House is unlikely to help it achieve the goal.
The CDC on Wednesday resolved to stipulate in the draft charter that the Senate will consist of 200 members, who will serve up to two six-year terms.
What is bound to stir up controversy is the panel’s decision to limit selection of the entire membership of the upper House to certain, predetermined groups of people.
There is a serious concern that the “unelected” Senate will not earn respect or acceptance from many citizens who would rather have representatives accountable to people directly through voting.
According to the CDC’s announcement, half of the Senate will consist of former high-level politicians, bureaucrats and former heads of professional organisations such as prime ministers, military commanders, court presidents or labour union leaders.
The other half will be nominated by a screening committee and chosen by a so-called People’s Assembly, together with executives and members of local administrative bodies.
CDC spokesman Gen Lertrat Ratanavanich said the primary reason for the composition of the Senate is pluralism.
The charter drafters want the upper House to be represented by people from diverse professions, social status and ethnicities.
For that purpose, it is understandable that the CDC opted for an indirect election as some experts or community leaders may not stand a chance of becoming senators if it is through an election only.
Also, the CDC’s intention to have the upper House function as a counter-balance to the House of Representatives, whose members come via an election is clear.
Unfortunately, it is questionable whether this design will become effective.
The CDC must not forget that by allowing former state officials and bureaucrats to comprise half of the Senate, it is encouraging further power entrenchment.
These candidates, who will certainly influence the course of the Senate’s action, come from a limited, elitist pool.
As top decision makers in their fields, they are not necessarily accountable to the public at large.
Besides, these top policy makers are more likely to be a part of the status quo that sent them to their positions of power than be agents of change which is the expected role of a new batch of senators in what is supposed to be a reform era.
As for the other half of the Senate where a screening committee will nominate qualified people from diverse backgrounds and expertise, the CDC has not specified who will make up that panel, and whether it will be accountable to the public or voters in anyway.
The charter drafters have also not clarified who will make up the People’s Assembly which will have the final say in the selection process.
It’s not clear how the assembly members will be chosen and how the council will function as part of a democratic mechanism.
One thing is clear, despite many doubts and questions regarding the new Senate — if the upper House is to be fully appointed, it will fail to accommodate the political aspirations of a large number of people who want to select their representatives directly.
If this does happen, the new charter could end up widening the political rift and make the goal of reconciliation even more elusive.