An early election is no answer to the current crisis

Despite denials from some senior Pheu Thai Party members, talk about an early election has lingered on. Many political observers believe House dissolution is Thaksin Shinawatra’s Plan B if the current push for a political amnesty fails. Another reason for seeking a new mandate for Pheu Thai is that the present administration might be running out of steam sooner than expected.

House dissolution would be justified if for the latter reason – that the Yingluck government needs to renew its legitimacy in order to carry on its policies. It’s a democratic strategy applied by politicians all over the world. When in doubt, seek a new mandate.

But if an early election is sought simply to whitewash one man, those involved in its promulgation must think again. Political crimes can be erased, but not by vowing to do so in order to win an election. This issue is far more sensitive and complicated than promising free computer tablets to students, a higher minimum wage or a debt moratorium for farmers.

When it comes to the so-called “amnesty”, there are a few things to consider. First, this government can push an amnesty bill through Parliament with or without the opposition’s support. It’s about political courage, not parliamentary numbers. If the Pheu Thai camp is confident that its amnesty scheme will bring good things to Thailand, what is it afraid of?

Second, unlike computer tablets or massive welfare schemes, amnesty concerns the judiciary, one of the three pillars of democracy. People to benefit under the planned amnesty are those who have been punished, or stand to be punished, by the justice system. To flex parliamentary muscle in order to undo what the judiciary has done is questionable, to say the least.

Third, what guarantee will Pheu Thai have even if it wins a new election comfortably? Already, the ruling camp has a strong command of Parliament, and any national policy that has nothing to do with Thaksin Shinawatra has sailed through the normal democratic channels without fail. The difficulty of the amnesty plan does not lie in the parliamentary numbers, but in the highly controversial nature of the plan itself.

Fourth, Thais are confused already about what democracy can do and what it cannot do, so Pheu Thai should do them a favour by not compounding the confusion.

While politicians in trouble like to seek a new mandate, the truth is that House dissolution cannot solve every problem. Thaksin should know this better than anybody, since he tried it once when he was cornered by street protests triggered by tax controversies in his business empire. A lot of other controversies followed that dissolution, with critics saying it was wrong for a prime minister to hold Parliament accountable for his own personal issues.

The three pillars of democracy are supposed to check and balance one another. Some elements in the ongoing crisis have painted the judiciary as being a big part of a conspiracy against Thaksin. A closer look at his alleged wrongdoings – share concealment, the purchase of state property in violation of the law, and tax privileges enjoyed by his family members and business empire – show that the executive branch and legislature virtually ignored them. The judiciary, which attempted to tackle them, deserves better than being dubbed a tool used to victimise a popular politician.

Calling a new election when a key policy is opposed and thus causing deadlock a not necessarily a democratic solution. Thailand is in a peculiar situation. As long as Pheu Thai resists the temptation to retest its popularity in a new election, at least the already confused state of our democracy won’t get any more complicated.

And even if we take moral principles out of the equation, political logic alone does not favour using numerical superiority in Parliament to force through divisive changes. After all, this is not a computer game, where hitting the “restart” button can bring about a fresh beginning. As far as the current crisis is concerned, House dissolution and an early election won’t take us back even halfway.