Primary voting: Much ado about a good idea that doesn’t work here

It’s another big paradox of Thai politics. The idea is great. It will enhance democracy. It will give the grass roots a real say in the political system. Real participation will be guaranteed. 
The only problem is: How do you put it in to practice?
Another and even more serious problem is: Do most of our politicians understand what a primary voting system means in its genuine form, and not in a twisted, localised way that suits their own interests?
A member of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) recently made a very revealing confession: We know how to draw up a good charter but we don’t have the experience of implementing it. Only politicians know how to make it work.
In other words, in Thailand, good ideas might turn out to be disastrous once put into practice. It isn’t hard, therefore, to conclude that the voting proposal is nothing more than a trial balloon to be shot down once it’s spotted in the bright blue sky.
In its basic form, a “primary” is an election that narrows the field of candidates in preparation for a general election. Primary elections are one means by which a political party or alliance can nominate candidates for an upcoming election.
Primaries are common in the United States, where their origins are traced to a progressive movement to transfer the power to nominate candidates from party leaders to the people.
This, in theory at least, should prove a good step towards empowering citizens by giving them a say in selecting candidates for office. It is so appealing, in fact, that the system has been made compulsory in Thailand for the first time under the political party law, which was passed on June 15 by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA).
Politicians were quick to voice their opposition to the new method. Obviously, they hadn’t been consulted in the move beforehand, though it shouldn’t have come as a big surprise. After all, charter drafters have made it their policy to draw up a new constitution that ensures the country’s political system is part of the focus of national reform. As such, old political habits should be discarded wherever possible.
Criticism from veterans of the political arena has centred on the fear that a primary voting system will hand excessive power to party branches and representatives in deciding on election candidates.
If the new organic law were put into practice as it stands, all parties would be required to hold primaries in each constituency to select MP candidates before the general election. That means party branches and members would have a say in nominating their candidates for the election.
The bill stipulates that political parties must have at least 100 provincial branches, or at least 50 representatives available to contest constituencies in elections. Party members will have the right to vote for their preferred candidates. Up to now, that prerogative has legally belonged to the party’s executive members.
Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Democrat Party leader, has perhaps been the most vocal critic of the new move. He isn’t necessarily against the new method, he says. But there are complications that need to be looked at before embarking on the new system.
He argues in an open letter that on closer scrutiny, the primary system risks violating the new constitution since it could prevent some parties from contesting in every locality, thereby preventing voters in those areas from expressing their political will.
The new charter, he says, has been designed to make every vote count thanks to a mixed-member apportionment system used to calculate each party’s representation in the lower House. That means a party’s nationwide vote tally will be taken into consideration, not just its success in winner-take-all constituencies.
The draft stipulates that voting results will be forwarded to parties’ headquarters for a final decision – but if they can’t come to conclusions, the primary process is to be repeated. That, in practice, could create new complications in an already confusing situation.
How is this contentious issue going to play out? A joint panel to review the proposed system is being set up, comprising members of NLA, the CDC and Election Commission (EC).
That, in effect, means that this basically sound idea of a primary voting system won’t see the light of the day anytime soon.