Thailand is now witnessing a new spate of interest in non-electoral forms of political representation. Last week Bangkok Pundit provided a brief, but important, post on the PA(S)D’s proposal for “sufficiency democracy”. It is a proposal for 30 percent of parliamentary representatives to be elected and 70 percent to be appointed. Those making the appointments would, presumably, be wiser and less-self interested than the electoral masses.
In this spirit of nouveau-elitism New Mandala would like to invite innovative suggestions from readers on alternative ways of selecting political representatives. Elections have clearly fallen out of favour in some influential quarters (perhaps they were never in favour!?), so let’s move with the spirit of the times and come up with some new options.
I have previously proposed a “New Sakdina” system whereby votes would be weighted according to a voters level of education. Here is a brief extract from my proposal:
With the lowest weight, of course, would be the completely uneducated. Some may be shocked to learn that there are still people wandering the remote regions of Thailand who have never been to school. In fact, I have even seen some of them casting a vote (and signing their name beforehand with a crude thumb-print). Shocking! Their weighting should clearly be so low as to make voting hardly worth lining up in the queue. …
At the peak of the system would, of course, be the peak of educational attainment – the honorary degree. I would propose a maximum New Sakdina rating for the rare class of individuals who can receive a degree without even studying for it!
I still think my proposal has merit (and not just because I am contemplating my own hefty New Sakdina rating). But it was ignored by the drafters of the 2007 constitution. So put your thinking caps on and come up with some alternatives. Elections are well and truly old-hat, especially given their tendency to produce politicians.
As the PA(S)D protestors have shown us, there must be a better way!
I may even be persuaded to offer a prize for the best alternative. We won’t vote for the best, of course. I will chose!
9 responses so far ↓
1 David Reid // Jun 30, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Sortition or election by lottery is actually considered a serious and realistic means of election by some.
The idea of weighting votes by income would be good if the weighting was inverse to a person’s wealth. i.e. poor people’s votes were worth more. The rich already have influence and power and can get what they need anyway.
2 Pracharat // Jun 30, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Your system is too complicated to calculate and easy to cheat. They just need to forge a few degree paper which we have a case even among our (honor) Parliament members.
Just go back to Absolute Monarchy and nobody will dare oppose that idea, less one or two.
3 Elli Woollard // Jun 30, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Rather than overhaul the electoral system, I propose a fraud-proof arrangement whereby the only section of the Constitution to be amended is that relating to the qualifications required by the prime minister. In the amended version, any future prime minister would:
1) be required to be a former police officer.
2) be required to have owned a telecommunications company.
3) be required to have done dodgy business deals with Singaporean companies.
4) be required to own an English football club.
5) be required to have a wife allegedly involved in dodgy land purchase deals.
By thus restricting the eligibility criteria, the need for lengthy constitutional amendments relating to the electoral system would be avoided, and only those candidates who met the strict criteria would apply.
So much for gratifying the Thaksin supporters.
This would of course put a bee in the bonnet of the PAD, who would then run straight to the military and order another coup, whose leaders could perhaps go on educational visits to Burma and Zimbabwe to learn how elections should be conducted.
Which in turn would lead to a counter-coup, a new civilian government, a new constitution, and the rise of a new filthy-rich businessman who would win favour with the poor while condoning the killing of alleged drug dealers and muslim insurgents.
Which in turn would lead to a new coup…
4 jonfernquest // Jun 30, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Provincial assemblies and a real provincial media!
Then people could fight their local battles where it counts.
Everytime a news story touches on the provinces, there’s always something hidden and unseen creeping in the background, like a horror flick. The ithipon meud meud of provincial Thailand. Can’t talk about it, or you’ll get shot, people say. A healthy body politic?
When the local mess gets sorted out, this will pave the way for sorting out the current mess at the center.
5 Grasshopper // Jul 1, 2008 at 12:43 am
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea
Democratic Peoples Republic of Congo
Democratic Peoples Republic of Thailand!?
Maybe having used the Democratic Peoples Republic line before is lame, but I’ve observed that really the only way to be truly Democratic and Republican is to allow your elites (in this case the King and everyone else involved in this B grade soap opera, — A grade if Libby Kennedy was involved –) to determine that they are a Republic, and in the case of Thailand, the King, as he has admitted his lack of divine powers, would be re-marketed as a social philosopher and consequently sufficiency theory becomes a basis for Thai fascism. Voting would be determined by how close you live to the King, I mean, #1 Buddy Bhumibol (big bold yellow letters on slightly paler yellow tops), and so obviously, those further away from #1 Buddy would be left to live the Nomadic lives that humans were meant for. Thai people in close proximity to #1 Buddy would admire the rural nomads for saving the environment by relinquishing their farms which have been turned into sufficient military bases as a result of the sufficient national paranoia.
Those close to #1 Buddy would get to vote on important issues such as designated orange juice squeezer, women who have the appropriate Thainess to give birth, and whether to import Mercedes or BMW because one cannot be sufficient and have both.
6 Anon // Jul 1, 2008 at 6:49 am
Your system is nice, but sounds a bit too old and feudal to be accepted. Rather, I suggest going resolutely modern, at least on the outside, with the first ever ” Senator Academy”.
During 3 months, pre-selected luuk nong of conservative phu yai would compete with each other, distract the populace, and extract money from the audience (100B / call to “save” a contestant). Everyday the contestants would be trained, evaluated and at times ridiculed by 3 moral and pure judges. The contestant would be evaluated on their capacity to :
- Explain any problems in Thailand by the deleterious influence of the West, the Thaksin regime and the loss of morality and Thainess in the younger generation
- Responds to critics by ad hominen attacks and suggesting they are plotting against the monarchy, nation and religion
- Accept the opinion of phuyai and recognizes in all situations who’s your boss/patron
- behave hypocritically without loosing sleep,
and finally and not the least:
- Find a way to defend the 1976 massacre, contempt for rural folks and ethnic minorities, domestic violence and rape as somewhat part of thainess.
This system would satisfy the exigencies of liberal democracy as anyone could apply to be a contestant (a few normal folks would be included but rapidly eliminated) and everyone would have 1 free vote to save a contestant (after that, you have to pay 100B to vote). At the same time, this system of selection would also meet the criteria of despotic elitism (or thai-style democracy) as contestants would be pre-selected by a council of self-proclaimed moral guides ( chulalongkorn law professors, artistocrats, privy councillor on temporary leave, etc.), so all “bad” candidacies would be screened out months before the show begins (except again for a few people meant to be eliminated in the process). The final choice of who’s going to be a senator would rest in form with the population, but the powers behind would still have lots of room to manipulate the process (selection of footage, harsh criticism by the three judges on stage, cheating on the vote count). In the end, all happily-selected senators would just “happen” to be clients of some members of the selection council or other influential people.
Truly, it’s the best system.
7 Sidh S. // Jul 1, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Anon, you might have just described a Thai Beauty Pageant contest! Thanks for the good laugh over lunch.
8 bkkresident // Jul 1, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Truly the best for of representation is random selection by computer. Let a computer throw out 480 names every 4 years. And then random selct the cabinet amongst these 480. Fair and square and everyone gets an equal chance.
9 A way forward for Thai politics? // Aug 4, 2008 at 1:01 pm
[...] a month ago I light heartedly asked for suggestions on how governments in Thailand should be chosen. Given that some commentators are disillusioned [...]
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.