Impeachment case just signals great dilemma

Should a military-installed Parliament tell an elected Parliament what to do? The decision by the National Legislative Assembly, set up after the coup in May, to start impeachment procedures against former Senate speaker Nikhom Wairatpanich and former Parliament president Somsak Kiatsuranon amounts to just that. It reflects the harsh irony of Thai politics and demonstrates how tight is the corner that we have now reached. If having the NLA impeach the two men does not sound right, what about what the pair’s actions and how they helped trigger the political turmoil leading up to the power seizure?

It’s a brutal chicken-and-egg situation at best and vicious circle at worst. And it underlines the root cause of Thailand’s political crisis. Elected politicians don’t live up to ethical expectations and invariably open the door for military intervention, which usually can’t live up to expectations, either. Somsak and Nikhom played controversial roles in events that provoked street protests leading to violence and, eventually, the coup. Their current troubles stem from the way they helped push for a drastic change to the Thai parliamentary structure, but their roles in other explosive episodes like the “amnesty” scheme are also worth mentioning.

Last year’s parliamentary handling of the “blanket amnesty” bill was, on the one hand, portrayed as a democratic exercise. In other words, controversial as it was, if it was a policy advocated by an elected party, how could it be wrong? Democracy is about settling a dispute through voting, isn’t it?

We all wish democracy was that simple. Well, not exactly. We all wish elected politicians knew the limits of democracy. The amnesty issue, on the other hand, had to do with a complex range of questions regarding the direction of Thai politics, not just the future of one man or one political clan. It concerned the question of how we treat corruption. The bill put democracy on the spot because it begged thorough social scrutiny no matter how solid the support it seemed to enjoy in Parliament.

Though it occurred little more than a year ago, the swift attempt, under the guidance of Somsak and Nikhom, to push controversial legislation through Parliament has probably faded from many people’s memory. Were the pair observing their sacred parliamentary duty to be prudent and allow as much debate as possible when dealing with great controversies? The answer was pretty plain for those of us who watched Parliament in action on the days in question.

Whether the current attempts to impeach former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Somsak and Nikhom are the “cause” or the “effect” of Thailand’s problems is a divisive question. In other words, it’s a blame game. One may argue that elected politicians “misbehaved” in order to rectify an “injustice” inflicted upon them by undemocratic powers. Or one may argue that the “injustice” was an unavoidable outcome of their bad behaviour in the first place. The “dots”, however, are there to be traced.

It’s easy to argue “for” democracy. But that doesn’t mean democracy is supposed to be easy. In fact, democracy has to showcase the toughest set of rules. A system advocating free will must be equipped with effective checks and balances, ones which draw a line that isn’t to be crossed. An “anything-goes” democracy will only weaken itself sooner rather than later.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing for the military-installed NLA to impeach Somsak and Nikhom? Here are more difficult questions: Were Somsak and Nikhom part of a strong democracy? If not, what should we do about it?