US debates, primaries worth emulating

Thais had reason to be envious while watching Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump debate on television this week, notwithstanding whatever perceived shortcomings America’s two major presidential candidates have. Televised confrontations between rival politicians are a rarity in Thailand, but Americans will see the top challengers for their nation’s highest office face one another three times before election day in November.

Such face-to-face public meetings provide valuable opportunities to hear the candidates outlining their strategies for resolving issues. The consensus on the opening round for Trump and Clinton seems to be that there was too much unhelpful bickering and holier-than-thou pontificating, but then such exchanges are typical of political debates. It might be argued that these televised proceedings are little more than beauty contests, more style than substance. Just the same, even if the candidates end up not fully addressing the issues, there is much to learn in how they respond to questions and how well they maintain their poise under pressure.

Thais have often wondered why their prime-ministerial candidates don’t debate each other on TV. Perhaps it’s because our politicians wish to avoid such direct public scrutiny or else lack confidence in their intelligence and viewpoints. To be sure, oratorical skill need not be a criterion for leadership, but those who aspire to rule the country should at least be able to articulate their plans before an audience, and to be persuasive about it.

American voters get to hear not only the final rivals for the presidency but also every contender on the way up, starting with the state primaries. In this cumbersome but effective winnowing down of broad slates of candidates, rank-and-file members of each party select the ones who move ahead. Thailand’s Constitution Drafting Commission considered and rejected this concept, but the National Reform Steering Assembly still thinks it’s a good idea. “Political parties must belong to the people and not to any financier, to make sure they work for the public interest and not for [any individual’s or group’s] personal benefit,” assembly vice president Alongkorn Ponlaboot has said.

Wealthy politicians and others with money have indeed been pulling the parties’ strings for far too long. Family dynasties and old school allegiances have a shocking degree of influence, stalling the country’s democratic development when personal interests are routinely placed ahead of public need. Party leaders and their powerful backers hold sway, ignoring the opinions and ideas proposed by ordinary members. It is the party executives who lead their followers to ruin, as happened in recent years when electoral fraud led to the court-ordered dissolution of a string of parties. In other cases the parties’ over-dependence on financiers has led to major conflicts both within the parties and among the electorate.

Political parties are of course essential to democracy, but national democracy suffers if they themselves are not democratically run. Having executive members elected by the rank and file becomes just as essential, yet that’s a far cry from the current practice whereby “patriarchs” and other elite members choose the leadership and, in some cases, the prime minister. The parties must genuinely represent the people who adhere to their noblest ideology. It is those who uphold the policies that serve the nation best who are best suited to select the leadership and leading electoral candidates.

If the ordinary members are barred from the political equation, we fall short of the definition of democracy as “a political system ruled by the people”.