Despite being the keeper of rules, the Election Commission (EC) never really informed political parties that there are regulations barring them from taking out loans.
That's because there are no such rules. And that's also why at least 32 parties, including the opposition Future Forward Party (FFP), have sought loans to fund their activities over the past few years.
Yet the EC has decided to only take action against the FFP, calling on the Constitutional Court to have it dissolved over a 191-million-baht loan it took from party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.
Whether the FFP does or does not get dissolved today, the EC's credibility, which has been dwindling over the past two years, has hit a record low. When the EC handed out its list of do's and don't's to parties as a guideline for the election last year, there was no mention about loans being prohibited.
Former EC commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn also came out to say that at least four parties had taken out loans in 2013. Even a leaked report of the EC's investigation into the FFP loan case revealed that poll officials had advised the commission that taking out loans was not illegal because it was done by other parties and had been allowed to take place in the past.
Even if the EC believes that parties should not be allowed to take out loans, it should have made it clear to all of them and ensured their compliance. And if the commission considers the action of taking loans illegal, then it should be held responsible for negligence and for allowing it to happen.
Also, the 2017 Political Party Act has no provision forbidding parties from taking out loans. Many parties have sought loans because they consider themselves private entities, and unlike state bodies, can take any steps that are not prohibited by law.
So now the question arises: On what basis can the EC seek the FFP's dissolution? It has accused the party of accepting a loan, assets or other interests that were acquired illegally or from illegal sources which is a violation under Section 72 of the act, and called on the court to dissolve the party in line with the constitution's Section 92.
The EC decided to slap the party with this serious charge even though the loan was taken out transparently. Mr Thanathorn himself told the public about this matter during a press event last year.
This case, again, exposes the fact the EC failed to do its job of promoting the development of parties. With its commissioners appointed by the former military regime, the EC instead appears to be doing the job of taking down anti-regime parties such as FFP and Thai Raksa Chart.
The commission had Thai Raksa Chart disbanded just before the March 24, 2019 election for the "wrongdoing" of nominating Princess Ubolratana as its prime ministerial candidate. The dissolution request was based on the claim that this nomination undermined the monarchy which must be politically neutral. And it had the party disbanded.
Again, as the rule keeper, the EC should have just disqualified the nomination without going so far as seeking the party's end. In comparison, the poll agency cleared the pro-regime Palang Pracharath Party of all wrongdoing for holding a 600-million-baht fundraising banquet without even investigating if certain state agencies and state officials had donated to the party as accused.
The list of cases that show the EC's incompetence and lack of impartiality is long. Its move to seek the FFP's dissolution is a reminder that the EC's credibility may have sunk to its lowest point.