Thaksin will still be able to influence Thai politics
Saturday, 5 January 2008
Chen Hurng-yu
AFTER A YEAR of adjustments, Thailand's military government has held parliamentary elections. Because the junta has maintained military control over the country following last year's coup, the elections were not entirely free. Fortunately, there were only a few violent incidents and for the most part the elections proceeded smoothly.
The People's Power Party (PPP), which supports former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, won almost half of the seats -- 233 out of 480. This means the party will form a coalition government. Thaksin is still powerful and he will still be able to influence Thai politics.
One of the more noteworthy things about the elections was that the voting system changed from two votes per voter in small constituencies to two votes per voter in medium-sized constituencies.
The country is divided into 157 such constituencies, each of which elects up to three members of parliament. Eighty MPs are also elected based on proportional party representation in eight national constituencies.
The main reason behind this change to the system was that the previous small voting districts led to Thaksin's old party, Thai Rak Thai, winning two-thirds of parliamentary seats in the last election.
This went against a trend that had developed in Thailand over the previous 50 years in which no single party had obtained an absolute parliamentary majority.
The new system was specially designed by the junta and had also been given tacit approval by Thailand's king: He and top military leaders did not want a single party to win an absolute majority and thus gain control of parliament.
If that were to happen, power could fall into the hands of wealthy ethnic Chinese and it could also threaten the authority of the king and the interests of ethnic Thais. In the past 50 years, Thailand has maintained this traditional political framework, balancing the powers of the king, the army and the parliament. When Thailand amended its Constitution in 1997, the elite started to gradually change the voting system because it wanted to move toward one with two votes and small districts, as was fashionable at the time. They had not expected that this would lead to the large Thai Rak Thai party gaining control of parliament.
The traditional political system lost its equilibrium and the medium-sized and small parties were unable to benefit from the new political arrangement. They couldn't share in political power as they had done in the past and started to boycott Thaksin's government.
The king and the military were worried about this development, and the military took advantage of the situation to stage a coup, bringing an end to single-party control of parliament.
The new electoral system is meant to correct the shortcomings of the small district system used in the last elections, but the results make it clear that this has not been completely effective.
The military government made an effort to diminish Thaksin's power by disbanding Thai Rak Thai and banning 111 party members from participating in politics for five years. But in the end, the PPP still won almost half of all parliamentary seats.
The party has promised to abolish the ban on Thai Rak Thai, while the junta is actively investigating accusations of corruption and tax evasion against Thaksin's family to eradicate his power. Thailand's political troubles might not have ended yet.
The military government went even further when on Dec. 21 it passed a law on internal security, which states that in situations where the national security might come under threat, the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) -- which is responsible for maintaining national security -- has the right to order curfews, restrict freedom of movement and limit the power of government officials.
Most important is that this law borrows rules from similar laws in Malaysia and Singapore that allow detention of a suspect for six months without trial and limit access to electronic equipment. The difference is that in Singapore and Malaysia these powers lie with the interior ministries; the Thai system grants these powers to the military.
The Thai military government has promised to implement measures to return government power to the public, but it is leaving a lot of room to manipulate matters to its advantage.
If the PPP makes too much use of its parliamentary majority, brings Thaksin back to power or challenges the military, then the generals might use the internal security law to defend their interests.
Thailand's readjustment of its electoral districts shows that there might be initial difficulties with its introduction, especially where it interferes with the long-established political environment and the allocation of benefits.
Taiwan should study Thailand's experience because Taiwan is also in a phase of democratic consolidation.
Many democratic mechanisms have struggled to come about -- and some have failed to do so -- because of political infighting over the last few years.
After the upcoming presidential elections, therefore, the system should be thoroughly reviewed.
Chen Hurng-yu is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at Tamkang University.
Thaipei Times
AFTER A YEAR of adjustments, Thailand's military government has held parliamentary elections. Because the junta has maintained military control over the country following last year's coup, the elections were not entirely free. Fortunately, there were only a few violent incidents and for the most part the elections proceeded smoothly.
The People's Power Party (PPP), which supports former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, won almost half of the seats -- 233 out of 480. This means the party will form a coalition government. Thaksin is still powerful and he will still be able to influence Thai politics.
One of the more noteworthy things about the elections was that the voting system changed from two votes per voter in small constituencies to two votes per voter in medium-sized constituencies.
The country is divided into 157 such constituencies, each of which elects up to three members of parliament. Eighty MPs are also elected based on proportional party representation in eight national constituencies.
The main reason behind this change to the system was that the previous small voting districts led to Thaksin's old party, Thai Rak Thai, winning two-thirds of parliamentary seats in the last election.
This went against a trend that had developed in Thailand over the previous 50 years in which no single party had obtained an absolute parliamentary majority.
The new system was specially designed by the junta and had also been given tacit approval by Thailand's king: He and top military leaders did not want a single party to win an absolute majority and thus gain control of parliament.
If that were to happen, power could fall into the hands of wealthy ethnic Chinese and it could also threaten the authority of the king and the interests of ethnic Thais. In the past 50 years, Thailand has maintained this traditional political framework, balancing the powers of the king, the army and the parliament. When Thailand amended its Constitution in 1997, the elite started to gradually change the voting system because it wanted to move toward one with two votes and small districts, as was fashionable at the time. They had not expected that this would lead to the large Thai Rak Thai party gaining control of parliament.
The traditional political system lost its equilibrium and the medium-sized and small parties were unable to benefit from the new political arrangement. They couldn't share in political power as they had done in the past and started to boycott Thaksin's government.
The king and the military were worried about this development, and the military took advantage of the situation to stage a coup, bringing an end to single-party control of parliament.
The new electoral system is meant to correct the shortcomings of the small district system used in the last elections, but the results make it clear that this has not been completely effective.
The military government made an effort to diminish Thaksin's power by disbanding Thai Rak Thai and banning 111 party members from participating in politics for five years. But in the end, the PPP still won almost half of all parliamentary seats.
The party has promised to abolish the ban on Thai Rak Thai, while the junta is actively investigating accusations of corruption and tax evasion against Thaksin's family to eradicate his power. Thailand's political troubles might not have ended yet.
The military government went even further when on Dec. 21 it passed a law on internal security, which states that in situations where the national security might come under threat, the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) -- which is responsible for maintaining national security -- has the right to order curfews, restrict freedom of movement and limit the power of government officials.
Most important is that this law borrows rules from similar laws in Malaysia and Singapore that allow detention of a suspect for six months without trial and limit access to electronic equipment. The difference is that in Singapore and Malaysia these powers lie with the interior ministries; the Thai system grants these powers to the military.
The Thai military government has promised to implement measures to return government power to the public, but it is leaving a lot of room to manipulate matters to its advantage.
If the PPP makes too much use of its parliamentary majority, brings Thaksin back to power or challenges the military, then the generals might use the internal security law to defend their interests.
Thailand's readjustment of its electoral districts shows that there might be initial difficulties with its introduction, especially where it interferes with the long-established political environment and the allocation of benefits.
Taiwan should study Thailand's experience because Taiwan is also in a phase of democratic consolidation.
Many democratic mechanisms have struggled to come about -- and some have failed to do so -- because of political infighting over the last few years.
After the upcoming presidential elections, therefore, the system should be thoroughly reviewed.
Chen Hurng-yu is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at Tamkang University.
Thaipei Times