For some so-called pro-democracy advocates, constitutional reform by a democratically elected government seems to be more alarming than the complete destruction of a constitution by military force.
The outrage at the proposed amendment of Section 237 of the 2007 Constitution is motivated by anything but democratic principles. Section 237 allows the Constitutional Court to dissolve a political party if one of its executives is found guilty of electoral irregularity (or failing to act to prevent such an irregularity).
Given that charge and counter-charge of electoral irregularity is part of standard conduct of Thai politics (at local and national levels) this is a recipe for political instability and for opportunistic judicial intrusion into the electoral arena. Of course, there is always room for electoral reform, but while large sections of the Thai elite remain convinced that electoral outcomes don’t reflect legitimate political decisions, handing anyone the extraordinarily heavy-handed power contained in Section 237 is a shortcut to constitutional coup.
Some serious attitudinal reforms are required before sensible institutional reforms can be put into place. Don’t hold your breath waiting.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Apr 7, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“Some serious attitudinal reforms are required before sensible institutional reforms can be put into place.” > This statement might even be applied to politicians and voters, and not only to those sections of the elite that identify neither with the different political worldviews (”rural constitution”) of some sections of the voters nor with the political practice of significant sections of the politicians. And, no, for all these groups, I don’t hold my breath (ask Australians or Germans to change their operational worldviews…).
Anyway, I wonder what the relationship is of political attitude and political structure. If attitudes reflect structures (meaning that it is structures that select both the personnel operating within them and its attitudes), should we not rather call for a change of the latter? Unfortunately, societal structures do not normally care much about immediate normative demands for change. If structures could be changed, some institutional (i.e., legal) reforms might work. On the other hand, what is the effect of such legal provisions on both attitude and structure?
2 Grasshopper // Apr 7, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Srithanonchai, which came first – the chicken or the egg? Public politicis will continue to be a byproduct national social attitude. Private politics will continue to be a reflection of societal structure. When the national social attitude is fed up with the societal structure, then there is a possibility for the chicken to lay a new egg and an improved private structure to hatch which can be more relevant to the national social attitude.
With issues like the amendment to section 273 of the 07 constitution and stories like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7328054.stm , I am beginning to believe that the egg of Thai social attitude may be made of stone.
The only way to crack the stone egg I think is through multiculturalism within Thailand. Particularly, targeting people from the West to immigrate. Example is the best form of influence, etc. What would it take for the elites of Thailand to want to move in the direction of globalism? Would cracking the stone egg begin to dismantle Thai identity, or would it enforce it? Or perhaps a better metaphor would be reducing the stone to a mouldable clay? Imperialistic?! Probably.
3 nganadeeleg // Apr 7, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Section 237 allows the Constitutional Court to dissolve a political party if one of its executives is found guilty of electoral irregularity (or failing to act to prevent such an irregularity).
Of course they are changing the rules mid-stream all the sake of democracy, however it’s interesting that they seem to be targeting only a few sections, the amendment of which would clearly benefit themselves (plus Dr Thaksin and the banned 111).
Makes me wonder if they would in such a rush to amend if it were only their opponents who were under threat of dissolution.
btw, I have no problem with an orderly review of all sections of the constitution, but those rules applied to all parties at the time of the election, and a quick amendment to benefit themselves does leave a bad taste.
The form of any amendments they come up (and the beneficiaries thereof) will go a long way in showing whether there has been any attitudinal reform
4 jonfernquest // Apr 7, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I think that people can have an honest difference of opinion about how far constitutional reform should go. After all, why have a constitution, if the constitution is just defined to be whatever current government policy is.
Furthermore, there is supposed to be checks and balances between the judicial and executive legislative branch at the heart of the constitution, I would assume, although the current constitution was weighted more towards the judiciary, it seemed.
A lot of people have already thrown their support behind revising Section 237, the business community, Nattakorn and other people concerned about fostering the growth of political parties in Thailand. The real question it seems is whether the revision of 237 will lead to a revision free for all, ” a messy finger painting constitution is whatever I want it to be right now and I’ll change it ever 30 seconds to suit me and you’ll never keep track of the Gerrymandering and election rigging I build into the constitution”, sort of thing.
Some people are against revising it, pro-keeping the consittution intact.
5 Srithanonchai // Apr 11, 2008 at 10:07 pm
More fun ahead in Thai politics!
EC rules that Chart Thai, Matchimathipataya be dissolved
(BangkokPost.com) – Election Commission (EC) resolved Friday that Chart Thai and Matchimathipataya parties be dissolved.
Election commissioners voted 4:1 that executives of the two parties knew about or conspired in vote-buying schemes in the Dec 23 general election last year.
Somchai Juengprasert is the sole commissioner who decided that the two parties should not be dissolved.
EC will forward the cases to the attorney-general, who will then recommend the cases to the Constitution Court.
The Constitution Court will be the one giving the final rulings on the cases.
BP 11 April 2008
6 Dog Lover // Apr 13, 2008 at 6:28 am
The December election is not over. The attempt to “fix” it in favour of the anti-Thaksin forces is just taking a bit longer than they had initially planned.
7 colonel jeru // Apr 13, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Who is “fixing” and for whose end? Every “fix-it” action in Thailand’s political arena it seems provoke a counter reaction. Every good deed must not go unpunished . . . et al.
But at the center these political machinations? Thaksin or Prem? Who are the virtuous and who are vile? Take your pick.
8 Teth // Apr 14, 2008 at 1:41 am
Both are vile, but at least Thaksin is the more modern, forward-looking one. Yes, its sad the choice boils down to this.
Colonel, when you say your blog isn’t worth the time, why not at least keep it up and not update instead of tearing it all down?
9 Frank Lee // Apr 15, 2008 at 1:33 am
Thanks Teth,
Your statement above answered the question I just left you in another forum as well as confirming that, in your view, the king is NOT at the centre of political machinations.
So you’re a Thaksin supporter (albeit by default) these days? Most of my friends are too and they were all born here – and, who knows, maybe they are right, but I’d rather rub out the parties caught cheating and let the chips fall where they may.
How about some logical analysis? I have yet to see much anywhere, so (with some humor) this is how you might start justifying your stance. It would be a long way from pleasing any genuine academic with a proper point-by-point style, but this isn’t that type of forum.
Thaksin: Good Points – less of a throwback, less backward-looking, etc. etc.
Bad Points: crass nouveau rich wannabee, poor understanding of everything except how to make money, etc. etc.
X Factor: Maybe one day he will pull his head out of his ass.
Conservatives and Friends:
Good points – talk the talk (75 years and counting), etc. etc.
Bad Points – talk is cheap (ditto) etc. etc.
X Factor: Abhisit – the real deal or empty promise.
Bottom line: Will Thailand’s Barrak Obama please stand up!
10 Teth // Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53 am
I don’t support Thaksin, Frank. I see him as the lesser of two evils. Presently, I’m also looking for Thailand’s Barack, albeit Barack himself isn’t proven. The thing with the (Thai) Dems is that they are capable on paper, but each Dem government hasn’t had the overwhelming mandate Thaksin has, so is it really their fault for being ineffective? For your information, I voted for the Democrats. Also, rather than wait for Baracks to pop up, the Thai people really need to change from the bottom up and amend our attitudes like what Andrew pointed out.
Regarding the King being the center of political machinations, he hasn’t been machinating for a while now, but he still remains the epicenter of the network monarchy, and they have been performing a pretty central role in the political machinations.
11 Teth // Apr 16, 2008 at 11:24 am
I take back what I said about the King not recently being involved in political machinations. Publicly he still has his birthday speeches as ever, but privately, there is no way we can know the centrality of his role. The role of his network, though, is fairly blatant.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.