Mixed-Member Proportional System
The key questions appear to be whether it is better to adopt an electoral system that produces a coalition comprised of many medium-sized parties under the mixed-member proportional (MMP) system, or whether it is better to have a few large political parti
NRC’s Sombat Thamrongthanyawong: Why I don’t support the MMP system
The introduction of a German-style mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system under the new constitution will potentially lead to a coalition government, something that has not caused any problems in Germany because of the country’s noble political culture.
German politicians have higher morals, ethics and integrity than Thai politicians. And when this is the case it doesn’t matter what electoral or political systems are implemented – there will be no corruption or vote buying.
In democratically advanced countries like the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Germany, each one uses a different electoral system and all seem to work.
Therefore, the electoral system is not a factor in curbing vote buying and corruption. It is the political culture and quality of politicians that are the significant factors in eliminating corruption.
Take for example Germany, where supreme court judges and the president of the constitutional court are selected by elected politicians – a very effective process.
Now, does that mean that if such a process works in Germany, we should copy it? Can you imagine what would happen if we let our politicians choose those judges?
So again, our systems cannot change the outcome of vote buying and corruption – changing the political culture will do that, and that will take time.
Back to the potential of a coalition government being formed in Thailand through the MMP system. In Germany, the system works because German politicians do not wheel
and deal, and are not involved in collective efforts for large-scale corruption like Thai politicians.
In Thailand, as we saw before the introduction of the 1997 Constitution, coalition governments were formed on the basis of self-interest. If all sides benefit, the coalition remained. But if they failed to come to terms, a change in administration occurred.
Both outcomes didn’t serve the country, but merely the politicians.
So, introducing the MMP system here would mean a return this old problem.
Another point of concern over the MMP system is its high emphasis on party-list MPs, which would mean a significant number of lower House MPs not being directly elected by the people but rather chosen by political party leaders.
The charter drafters tried to solve this problem by introducing the “open list” rule, which will give voters the capacity to influence the order in which candidates are listed by allowing them to choose their preferred candidate, who will be listed according to the number of votes they receive.
This could solve the problem of party-list MPs’ disconnection from the people, but in practice it will be very challenging to implement successfully.
How many parties would put up candidates?
The vote counting will also take a long
time and be a complicated three-stage process, with the constituency MP vote followed by the party vote and the preferred candidate vote. Each process involves accumulation and calculation.
