Country trapped in tunnel vision over PM's selection

Is it more “democratic” for a country’s Constitution to require that the prime minister come from the ranks of elected MPs? Maybe, and maybe not.

To clarify the answer to the first question, a constitutional requirement that the prime minister be elected at constituency level makes people feel “secure”. Elections signify “democracy”, and hence such a requirement has the same effect as minimum qualifications in a job vacancy. We know a bachelor’s degree doesn’t guarantee a new recruit will be successful in the job, but we also know that the chances of failure are greater if the educational criteria are done away with entirely.

In the years when General Prem Tinsulanonda was prime minister, Thai democracy was dubbed “half-baked” because he didn’t need to be an MP. But, to clarify the answer to the second question, here’s the list of prime ministers who came after him and were elected MPs: Chatichai Choonhavan, Chuan Leekpai, Banharn Silapa-archa, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, Thaksin Shinawatra, Samak Sundaravej, Somchai Wongsawat, Abhisit Vejjajiva and Yingluck Shinawatra.

You don’t need to be a historian to know what happened to them. Coups dethroned Chatichai, Thaksin and Yingluck. Samak was ousted by the Constitutional Court, a cruel fate linked to the political crisis. Somchai also suffered a legal clampdown that dissolved his political party. By comparison, Chuan, Banharn and Chavalit endured less traumatic exits. Abhisit suffered blood being poured in front of his house, attacks on his limousine, and protesters blockading downtown Bangkok for weeks before he decided to launch a now infamous crackdown. Then came an election that saw his government ousted in shame.

So, the rule that a prime minister must be an MP makes everyone feel “secure” – except prime ministers themselves. It looks nice on paper, but does it solve the problems that plague Thai politics? The answer is an emphatic “No”. What happened to Chatichai, Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and Yingluck all but proves the point.

Now, the third question: Will Thailand’s Constitution be “more democratic” if it requires that the prime minister be an MP first? 

The answer is that such a charter will “appear” more democratic, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will actually be more democratic. Democracy means a lot more than having a prime minister whom people in, say, a Bangkok constituency, have elected as an MP.

The good thing about such a requirement is that it keeps alive the virtues of elections. If someone aspires to take the country’s helm, he or she must face an election first. It forces everyone – whether they like it or not – to taste what it’s like to have to please the voters and to be grilled by opponents during the election campaign.

Then again, if that requirement can be erased or rewritten overnight, what’s the point? In addition, we have the issue of “empowerment” to ponder. Is a Parliament that must choose a prime minister from among its own members “more democratic” than a Parliament that can choose “just anyone” as PM? 

That question is, of course, a rebuttal worthy of a lawyer. We all know that not just “anyone” can be prime minister. To rise unelected to leadership, a candidate must be backed by the real powers-that-be. In this sense, the requirement for the prime minister to be an MP is a last line of defence, no matter how easily penetrated.

The real issue here is, what constitutes genuine democracy? In this light, our focus on the origin of the prime minister needs to be widened to include other factors. 

If the prime minister is truly accountable, faces efficient checks and balances, and works for the country’s best interests, who cares where he or she comes from? Those factors should ease citizens’ worries and offer assurance that the overall system will offer good governance anyway.

If the beginning is right the end can hardly be wrong, goes an old saying. But this doesn’t make the case for MP prime ministers. Getting the beginning right is not just about the prime minister, but about the system he or she works under. An “elected” prime minister  who works in an environment that makes him or her virtually untouchable won’t foster accountability or democracy.

So, let’s go back to our original questions. Should Parliament elect prime ministers from among its own members? Yes. Will it really matter/would it help Thailand? Yes, but only if the requirement is supplemented by measures to ensure good, accountable governance. Is it more “democratic” for a country’s Constitution to rule that the prime minister must first be an elected MP? It depends.