Forget primary elections – let’s try something more practical

First, there would be too many MPs. Second, good MPs don’t guarantee a good government.
Let’s deal with “bad” MPs later and focus now on what the public can really do to improve politics. Shouldn’t we elect Cabinet members? I have written about the idea three times before, but some observers dismissed it as impractical. The “primaries” proposal has given me fresh impetus, since elections for ministers would address both problems above. First, there are far fewer ministers than MPs, and second, good ministers do guarantee a good government.
They say primary elections would improve democracy by allowing voters to screen election candidates, making it harder for unscrupulous party or faction leaders, or party sponsors, to place their proxies in Parliament. Proponents of the idea say registered party members in each constituency would vote to decide who among A, B, C, etc represents their party in the general election.
Critics cite budgetary and logistical obstacles, in addition to concern that the constitution itself may have to be rewritten to permit such a process. But at a time when the government is eager to spend billions on a landmark tower for Bangkok’s skyline, and when the constitution is redrawn every two or three years anyway, I’m not worried about those fears. Instead, the biggest potential problem is the likelihood that A, B and C will still be proxies or can become proxies later.
The technical difficulties associated with primary elections for MP candidates make ministerial elections look like a walk in the park. We can also sweeten the ministerial election idea by proposing that not all ministers have to be elected. Only key portfolios – such as finance, education, agriculture, interior, justice and science and technology – could be put to the vote.
The idea is simple: once the general election is over and Parliament has elected a prime minister, the country votes again to fill key Cabinet positions. This makes it possible for someone outside the prime minister’s party to take over, say, the Finance Ministry.
Of course, it’s an extreme form of democracy. One man with many votes is surely fairer than one man with merely one vote. What’s important here is that the “winner takes all” nature of politics will ease considerably. We may have a Democrat education minister, a Chart Thai agriculture minister and Newin Chidchob or Suwat Liptapanlop as sports minister. Pheu Thai, with its much-praised healthcare scheme, can supervise the Public Health Ministry.
Critics foresee a repeat of the kind of conflict we saw when Pheu Thai prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra clashed with Democrat governor of Bangkok Sukhumbhand Paribatra during the flood disaster of 2011. Of course, it may resemble a playground tussle at the beginning, but we can fine-tune constitutional and legal measures to iron out the negatives, while the positives remain abundant.
There will be fewer “nominees” in the Cabinet. The general election will stop being something parties try to win at all cost. The people will have the key ministers they deserve. Checks and balances will be even more rigorous. The public will be able to learn about real national issues during ministerial election campaigns. An elected education minister will better serve the public interest than would those placed in the post because the prime minister has nowhere else to put them. The spotlight on remaining Cabinet nominees will be more glaring.
If this is not a genuine “national” or “reconciliation” government, I don’t know what is. And it can’t be dubbed “undemocratic”, either. There will always be critics, of course, but if absolute democracy is the goal, what better than having the public choose who is in charge of their security, public health, education or tax spending? What better than making the people the real boss of those in charge of energy, or telecom or education policies?
Will it be redundant? This question stems from the belief that the prime minister has an electoral mandate to fill the Cabinet anyway he or she deems fit. To my thinking, that places too much on his or her shoulders, if indeed it’s not totally misguided empowerment. 
Sure, we would face a constitutional nightmare to begin with, when it would be necessary to redefine many things, including the scope of the prime minister’s power. The current political system would have to be upended. But what have we got to lose, really?