The prime minister of Neverland — a messy state of affairs

No, I am not going to talk about the prime minister of the Netherlands! It is all about our prime minister in Neverland, indeed. It is more than two months since Thailand held the general election, but successive meetings in Parliament of MPs and senators have failed to find the country its dream prime minister.

The leader of the Move Forward Party, Pita Limjaroenrat, who had strong backing from his coalition of MPs, however, failed to find support in the Senate, leading to him losing in the first round. A week later, he was again at the receiving end of opposition from MPs and senators, this time the majority of parliamentarians rejecting his candidature in the second round of voting for prime minister on the grounds that he had already failed once and parliamentary rules forbid presenting a motion twice in the same session. That was not all, Pita was suspended from serving as an MP by the Constitutional Court after the judges decided to accept a petition from the Election Commission seeking his disqualification over shareholdings in a media company.

This is a live and developing story in Thai politics, drama of the kind never seen before. The political drama is still going on and on. Two academics toed the line of our national gurus and told the media that blocking Pita by using ‘parliamentary laws to overrule the Constitution’ was illegal. So they moved on to file their petition to the “Ombudsman” to ensure the case will be handed over to the Constitutional Court.

The messy current scenario begs the question: How did we reach here? As a Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) member, I find all this melodrama stupefying. Particularly, the idea of some people to prolong the vote on prime minister until the end of this Senate’s tenure. It must be stated categorically that this cannot be done and the fact that such ideas are being suggested confirms the ineptitude of the present Parliament, raising questions about its ability to perform its duties. Our national interest is at stake and it is the responsibility of caretaker Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-Cha to have an audience with HM the King and ask for dissolution of Parliament.

Wait a minute! That might be acting too hastily. The Constitution does offer a way out of the current impasse. The second clause of Section 272 of the Constitution says: “In case, Parliament cannot find any contender as appropriate for taking the premiership, two-thirds of the Senate as well as the majority of the two Houses can vote to by-pass all conditions cited in the ordinary selection procedure. They can select any other contenders from either in the preliminary short-list or outsiders. This process would need around 500 votes to overcome this hurdle. And if this is still not working, General Prayut could opt out of the said choice.

Meanwhile, another issue cropped up after Pita’s second failure to bid for PM. The Ombudsman’s office decided to petition the charter court, claiming that the action of several MPs and senators to reject Pita’s candidature in the second round was unconstitutional. They seem to have deluded themselves into believing that the Constitution allows them to do whatever they want by citing Section 159. As someone who attended the first 500 meetings of the CDC, I can vouch that Parliament can choose whatever solution they all agree on. But that does not mean they could keep voting forever for any candidate who has failed in a previous round. They could claim that the meeting rules are legally less stringent than the Constitution in terms of enforcement. But, in this case, it is the duty of the parliamentarians to tackle the hurdle by themselves and not just throw a ‘hot potato’ in the court.

The Constitution already gives Parliament the freedom to find a proper way to ensure an individual becomes the PM of this country. Thailand is not Neverland but the lawmakers are trying hard to make the country look straight out of Peter Pan tales. The danger is greater when people who must find the solution decide to let the court decide the fate.

Thailand is a constitutional monarchy, which is very different from the so-called absolute separation of powers as in the US presidential system and in other places. I am afraid that repeatedly knocking on the doors of the courts would diminish the prestige, power and authority of the powers that be, because the court could even decide the uniform or meeting agenda if people want to win by law rather than winning with proper discretion.

The CDC drafted the Procedural Act in the Constitutional Court specifying that government bodies and their subsidiaries will abide by all rulings. The main purpose of this provision is to ensure anything important must be carefully scrutinised because the court decision will involve others unconditionally. But, we cannot make a mockery of the justice system by having small issues and miscellaneous items like parliamentary meeting agenda be taken to court.

I wish all MPs will carry out their duties appropriately and promptly. I must emphasise that it is impossible to let Prayut and his current government continue as a caretaker government until the end of this Senate's tenure. Of course, the Constitution does not say anything about how long or how far you can go on. Our legal intent, however, must be to eradicate all types of cheating or dishonesty so that the people have an angelic faith in our Constitution. The longer it takes for the parliamentarians to elect the prime minister, the greater the danger of this parliament being short-lived.

Amorn Wanichwiwatana, DPhil (Oxon), is a former member of the Constitution Drafting Commission and a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University.