After 19 coups, we need a different system
Play
Re: "NLA panel wants PM directly elected", News, December 13.
I now have the impression that our new constitution will never come to a fruitful and amicable conclusion when the issues to date have been so diversified and not target-orientated. First, the key decision should now be made as to whether we want a French/American-style separation of power or remain with parliamentary democracy, as has dominated Thai politics since 1932. Under parliamentary democracy, Thailand has faced 19 coups d’etat (12 successful and seven unsuccessful). Isn’t it time to try the doctrine of a separation of power with three branches – legislative, executive and judicial as first enunciated by the French philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu? Each branch acts as a check and balance against the others, as demonstrated in the United States on many occasions. Many past conflicts and much corruption in Thailand would not have happened if we had an elected premier and cabinet, because parliament should have detected the wrongdoings. Under this system, they are not supreme. That exiled man used to enjoy his supreme majority in Parliament and could be impeached independently. The parliamentary system thrives in Britain because it is based on gentlemen’s rules, there is no written constitution, and had had much time to evolve since the Magna Carta of 1215. On the whole, Thailand does not have many gentlemen ruling the country. I have yet to read any convincing argument that direct election of executives is bad. The common mantra links it to dictatorship, when rationally it is less so than the previous system. Ladies and gentlemen, change is called for!
Songdej Praditsmanont
