Former Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, once famously described Australia’s Senate as “unrepresentative swill.” He was right. The composition of Australia’s Senate is bizarre. With equal representation (12 senators) from each of the states, Tasmania’s half a million voters has the same Senate clout as New South Wales’ seven million! There may have been some logic to protecting the rights of smaller states in the original Australian federation, but that logic has well and truly passed its use-by date.
I wonder what Keating would have to say about Thailand’s current constitutional proposal for an appointed Senate. I suspect it wouldn’t be pretty.
Does Thailand really need a Senate? Do we have so little faith in the checks and balances of the electorate, the judiciary, the media and civil society that we need a modern day council of elders overseeing (and obstructing) the affairs of state? Even the Democratexceptwhenwecannotwinanelectionandthenacoupisok Party seems to have reservations about this proposal:
Democratic Party deputy leader Jurin Laksanawisit lashed out at the charter for bringing back an undemocratic appointed senate. “Instead of reforming it they step back in time and hand over power to seven people to appoint senators,” he said. “Why don’t they allow the people to choose by themselves?”
The senate may well be “unrepresentative swill”, but I’d like to know who the lower house MP’s are representing?
The following excellent comment by Rebecca Ryan says it all:
Andrew, nothing is as it seems in Thailand. There is little doubt that corruption and nepotism permiates every level of government. All political groups play dirty at some stage there-and it is sadly a fact that many thais accept with apathy. I don’t think it is enough to base your assumptions on viewing the superficial layer of the electoral process- rather take a closer look at the politicians involved- their backgrounds, personal connections, business activities and where their ultimate loyalties lie.
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2006/09/26/elections-under-thaksin/
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
It’s a little surprising that Paul Keating’s outburst is quoted with approval:surely, Andrew, that comment was just part of the rough and tumble of Australian political invective.I suspect Keating, a thoughtful politician, might on the Thailand issue be more circumspect than you suggest
More to the point you fail to mention that there is a very credible set of arguments for an unelected or only partly elected second chamber.This discussion has taking place in the UK with reference to the overdue reform of the House of Lords and is of course to prevent -I summarise- the tyranny of the majority and a mirror political image of the first chamber.Whether Thailand is politically mature enough to explore these options is a very good question, and I reluctantly conclude an elected chamber is probably appropriate.But there are definitely respectable counter arguments.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
They could have easily avoided this uproar by creating a senate with 76 elected representatives from the provinces and 76 representatives from professional groups. But no…
A regular page-two columnist in Matichon (April 22) started his comment with the sentence, “I confirm again that I will not vote for the constitution in the referendum as long as it stipulates that the senators will be appointed.”
And the the CDC could not even agree on the election mode for MPs, leaving this vital issue to backroom dealings of the CDC to put this into the election law. Here, Charan plays an intransparent role in trying to push through what he had been intent on from the very beginning, namely the de-facto abolishment of the party-list system.
“Do we have so little faith in the checks and balances…” Well, the Thaksin phenomenon, the Sondhi/PAD phenomenon (or would you count this as an exercise in media and civil society providing these checks and balances against a “tyrant”?), and the coup certainly did not increase this sort of faith…
Anyway, this is an anti-Thaksin and anti-voter as well as a pro-bureaucracy draft constitution. The National Legislative Assembly–Mechai Ruchuphan, Visanu Kruengam, and Borwornsak Uwanno–have already started to push for changes.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“I don’t think it is enough to base your assumptions on viewing the superficial layer of the electoral process- rather take a closer look at the politicians involved- their backgrounds, personal connections, business activities and where their ultimate loyalties lie.”
Exactly, the elections are often a distracting side-show that diverts attention from the real corrupt entrenched interests, one reason that you never see meaningful corruption charges, because the real big rent-seekers will always remain immune. Just like Thaksin said, corruption is part of the system, which the current government got all indignant about, but still has done very little to change.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The voice of the people can not be trusted. After all, they elected Thaksin and would continue to elect Thaksin if a free election were held tomorrow.
The King and the military know what’s best for Thailand. Let them elect the Senate, not the people.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“The voice of the people can not be trusted. After all, they elected Thaksin…”
Electoral politics went from a myriad of little parties centered on a personality to a single party centered on a personality, hopefully it will progress to a few parties centered on policy platforms and issues instead of worshipping personalities, then maybe participating in an election would become a more meaningful activity.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“hopefully it will progress” > This seems to have quite a long time horizon, given the structural starting conditions.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I think we can have a long debate on uni- or bicameralism. You will have enough examples and arguments of and for either case. The problem with the upper chamber in many countries is that they serve as a remaining tool for aristrocrats and that they slow down descision processes and can create deadlocks.
On the other hand I believe in the second chamber as a tool for an alternative representation i.e a geographical one. Many moan about the German federalism, but I believe in it. Even the governments of the Bundesländer often adhere their mandates in accordance to the parties they belong to, I still believe that regional representatives need a national forum.
I have always rejected the Thai Senate in its original form. But the senate system as it has been created in the 1997 constitution I consider as an advance to a more geographical representation where even someone from a province as remote as Nan or Loei can have someone representing his provice. It is worrying to see it abolished again.
We need a regional representation in order to avoid a regionalisation of parties as it has emerged with the election of Thaksin. I don’t think it is desireable to have parties associated with certain regions and having regional loyalties.
Just to mention, I would advocate a bicameral system in countries where a ethnic fractionalism exists. It is not good to have ethnic parties as they would be subjects to party politics and competition with other parties – a potential for conflicts.
If you have a chamber which represents the ethnic composition, a stable demographic representation would be guaranteed.
I still believe that the centralised state Thailand is a product of internal colonialisation (can’t remember who has coined this term in the context of Thailand) by the Bangkok elite. My dream is to have a kind of federal Thailand which appreciates the regions if not in the pre-Chulalongkorn era then at least according to the ภาค.
But if you read the first article of every Thai constitution strictly, this dream does not seem to be feasible.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0