Political parties set for ‘reset back to zero’?
Play
You don’t have to believe them, but polls conducted last week suggested that 86.3 per cent of Thais think politicians are chiefly responsible for the country’s long-drawn-out societal divisions, followed by 10.9 per cent who blamed the media.
That public scepticism is indicative of a general feeling that any return to elections must be accompanied by an urgent effort to make political institutions more transparent and politicians more responsible.
No one should have been surprised, then, when the Election Commission (EC) came up with proposals to place political parties under a new regimen of discipline.
And, of course, no one can claim to be flabbergasted that reactions from veteran politicians ranged from mildly unhappy to extremely negative.
Unsurprisingly, key members of the two main political parties, Pheu Thai and the Democrats, have spoken out against the proposed changes.
In fact, one Pheu Thai luminary went so far as to assert that the whole exercise was nothing but a massive, malicious plot to destroy the country’s major political parties and pave the way for the launch of a new set of parties that would support the continued influence of the current powers-that-be.
The new proposals have been labelled “a resetting of the political party system back to zero” and are grounded in the longstanding argument that Thailand’s messy journey towards genuine democracy has been plagued all along by a flawed party system governed by money interests rather than genuine public participation.
Politics, goes the credible claim, is nothing but a mode of investment in which the “investors” demand a high rate of return with little regard for ethics or the broader national interest.
Parties can be “owned” or “mortgaged” or “sold” for a price. MPs are nothing more than “loyal employees” of the “owner”, who instructs them to vote in Parliament according to his own political agenda, which invariably focuses on personal benefits rather than the public good at the national level.
This, of course, isn’t the first time that “reform” of the political party system has come to the forefront. In the past the constitution has stipulated that MPs could vote independently of their party line, the rationale being that they were in Parliament to represent the interests of their constituents rather than those of their “party bosses”.
But that provision was later blamed for “political instability”, when certain corrupt MPs demanded financial rewards in return for their votes in Parliament, rather than employing their new-found independence in the interests of their constituents.
Calls for political discipline triggered subsequent constitutional amendments that shifted the rule back to requiring that all MPs be attached to political parties so that they could not veer off the party line.
The main thrust of the proposals this time is to make sure that political parties genuinely represent the grass roots. Hence, the stipulation that each party must have at least 5,000 registered members, with each member paying a Bt200 fee.
Another clause would see a political party dissolved if it failed to field candidates in an election, thereby depriving parties of the right to boycott elections.
Severe punishment stipulated for those who cheat in an election runs from a “red card” that carries a 10-year ban from politics, to a “black card” which means a life sentence.
Under the proposed amendments, all of which may still be aborted if the debate gets bogged down, political parties would be required to present policy platforms to the EC before going public with them. Parties will also have to provide details about the source of funding for policies and the impacts of those platforms on the livelihood of the people in general.
Immediate reactions from veteran politicians were far from positive, of course. Is the EC empowered to decide which policies are “good” and which “bad?” Can it order parties to rewrite their policies? If not, what is the justification for designing this new and complicated process?
The EC’s main argument for the proposals is simple, if controversial: As the agency tasked with ensuring a free, fair and transparent electoral process, it is embarking on long-overdue reforms to ensure that anyone seeking public office faces close, public scrutiny.
Aspiring politicians would be unwise to condemn all the new regulations. In fact, anyone entering politics with an eye to raising standards of public service should welcome a new set of rules and regulations that helps to rebuild public trust and confidence in politicians.
