Reform shouldn't override rule of law

In its eagerness to declare democratic reform as its main motive, the junta seems to have overlooked that elected governments have a democratic mandate to deliver their policies. And, if their policies do go awry, their only punishment should be a “political” one, meted out by voters at the next election 

In a democratic system, political parties campaign on policy pledges. The election winners then make good on those pledges to the public by turning them into government policies by which they run the country.

Elections are the means by which this bargain between citizens and politicians is forged. Voters lend their mandate to one group of politicians in return for the implementation of policies they voted for.

It is true that, despite the check-and-balance safeguard provided by the elected parliament, such a system is no guarantee against poor or poorly implemented policies.

However, individual politicians and their parties remain accountable to the voters for their policy and its implementation. When things go wrong, voters have the final say on whether a government survives or falls. 

Of course, government policy is always at the mercy of corruption and abuse of power, whether by policymakers, politicians or bureaucrats. The country needs a strong and independent legal system to ensure that those who abuse power for personal gain are punished according to the law.

Corruption and abuse of power are criminal acts, and the law needs to be strictly and impartially exercised to deter such actions. Any political interference in that process, whether brought to bear by politicians or due to bias among the judiciary themselves, will damage the rule of law. As such, unless members of the judiciary can prove they are non-partisan, they should stay away from cases involving politicians.

The junta claims it ousted the previous government in order to clean up corruption in politics. But its reform process seems to be entangled in charges and accusations against the previous government.

One example lies in its handling of cases that have arisen from the ill-fated rice-pledging scheme. The junta-backed anti-graft and legislative bodies seem to have lost their way in their eagerness to eradicate the influence of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra and his family. The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) says it has found evidence of corruption in the implementation of the rice scheme, but has so far failed to convince the public which part of it went wrong and who was to blame. Initially it pointed the finger at corrupt practices by a former commerce minister, his deputy and senior officials at the ministry. But, with the case against those individuals still pending, the NACC instead placed its case against former premier Yingluck Shinawatra, charging her with negligence before the junta’s hand-picked National Legislative Assembly. 

The NACC never claimed she was corrupt in overseeing the rice scheme. Her resulting impeachment was greeted with dismay among many in the international community, who said the verdict was motivated by politics.

A case against Yingluck has now been forwarded to the Supreme Court’s Criminal Department for Political Position Holders. Meanwhile the corruption charge against former Commerce Ministry officials is notable for how slow it is moving. Also notable is the anti-graft body’s claim that it cannot proceed with a similar case against former premier Abhisit Vejjajiva and his ministers because the evidence was damaged by the floods of 2011.

The rule of law took another hit when the anti-graft body proposed last week that the Finance Ministry sue Yingluck for Bt600 billion in compensation for money lost to the rice subsidy. This figure seems arbitrary, at best, given that not even the agencies involved know exactly how much was lost in the scheme. And no one can explain the legal basis for making an individual politician legally responsible for the outcome of a policy.

If such a law really did exist, no future Thai premier would dare to implement any policy.