Panel proposes axing party-list MPs, expert doubts CDC will support it

The Lower House, he said, should be made up of constituency MPs only, elected from large wards under single-member districts. That would, in theory, make vote-buying more difficult.

The party-list system should be dropped because lists were often filled with greedy people who invest to enter politics and seek to profit, he said.

The party-list system was introduced in the 1997 Constitution. The motive was to give decent and capable people, who are often politically naive and have a lower chance of winning than “professional” electoral candidates, a place in politics. It was believed that people like academics, activists and civil servants would be able to contribute greatly. Party-list MPs often got ministerial posts.

But the problem has been that political parties reserved places on the list for their financiers, who used ministerial positions to protect their interests rather than the public’s. Hence, many believe the system could be a source of corruption.

A political scientist from Tham-masat University Attasit Pankaew said that it was usual to have groups who pursue personal interests in politics but it was a difficult issue to tackle. It was impossible to block them, he believed.

Despite the move to eliminate the party-list system, they could still find a way to retain influence, including via constituency MPs, he said. One way or another, it was inevitable that MPs would be connected with those interest groups. Thus, the political reform panel’s proposal yesterday might not be the answer, he added. 

Party-list MPs also are theoretically significant in national politics. They were supposed to make a difference as they have higher potential to implement policies with an impact on a greater number of people, because constituency MPs work more on a local level representing their geographic areas, Attasit said.

However, while it is natural that interest groups in politics will try to protect their interests, the practice could be limited with transparency, Attasit argued. Mechanisms to help protect the public interest could include reporting requirements about each party’s financial sources, or other measures that would inform the public about who exactly benefits from each party’s policies, he said.

But above everything, the composition of the House depends on the electoral system. Attasit said if the CDC were to recommend a Mixed-Member Apportionment system, MPs from both constituencies and the party lists would be required. A House composed solely of constituency MPs could only be allowed with a first-past-the-post system, he said. As a result, Attasit argued that the CDC would not adopt the proposal to drop the party-list system.