The Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) is championing a series of extraordinary laws that seek to extend bureaucratic control over the electoral process (see Asia Sentinel for a good overview of the rules). One of the strangest of the new regulations is the ban on candidates organising public rallies. According to two recent Thai Rat editorials ECT plans to organise at least two rallies in each district at which candidates can present their wares. Thai Rat has, quite rightly, launched a vigorous attack on this ludicrous proposal, defending the public rally as a key feature of Thai democracy. In Friday’s editorial Thai Rat argued that the regulation displayed a lack of understanding of the challenges involved in travelling to centrally organised public meetings in rural areas. Today they keep up the attack saying the ban on public meetings will benefit well known and well resourced candidates at the expense of those with a lower profile. For these less well-known candidates, public rallies are a quick and easy way of gaining profile. Establishing profile is now particularly difficult given the large electorates created by the new constitution.
Of course, this and other laughable electoral regulations are part of the sufficiency democracy view that the political and electoral process needs to be carefully guided by bureaucrats, judges and learned academics. Much has been written about the undermining of democratic institutions during the Thaksin era, but at least local electoral campaigns were vigorously contested in a climate of relative openness. Now the heavy hand of elite bureaucracy seems to be doing its best to limit electors’ exposure to the choices on offer. As I have argued before, sufficiency democracy is about an electoral process where the voters’ choices are limited as much as possible.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Michael H. Nelson // Oct 30, 2007 at 2:49 pm
At yesterday’s meeting of the provincial election commission of Chachoengsao, these two reallies per district were also mentioned. In past elections, PECs had organized one event per district. Candidates would speak to empty seats or to a few of their supporters they had brought with them.
By virtue of these silly regulations, all state units in a province must provide space for election posters at their offices/buildings, and urgently inform the PEC. One chief district officer said that he had no such space, but had to organize a blank board. Ok, said the PEC. But who will pay for that, asked the nai amphoe? No budget so far. One question then is who in the PEC’s office will travel to the many hundreds of state units in the province to check whether each of them had really provided “sufficient and equal” space for a) all candidates running in the constituency, and b) all political parties with party-list candidates in Chachoengsao’s region.
By the way, Thai Rat’s Sunday analysis was also quite strong. The basic problem, according to the paper, was that the coup group had not been successfull in eliminating the “old power clique”. It just had not retreated. For this reason, hidden power had to be used. One element of this was that Sonthi assumed the position as deputy prime minister with the responsibility to suppress vote buying. The second element was the ECT’s regulations. That is, the paper denied the ECT was independent and neutral, but rather part of the broader strategy of the coup plotters. On the outside, the paper concluded, this election might be about returning the power to the people. But behind the scenes, the election was about a total war between the “current powers” and the “old powers.”
2 Sidh S. // Oct 30, 2007 at 7:52 pm
From my reading of these aggressively rigid election rules, Michael’s last sentence is accurate. It is not about elections or democracy as such, but about preventing the ‘old powers’ return to government. There are two quite desperate men here, GenSonthi in government - who might well have to go into exile should Mr.Samak becomes PM - and PMThaksin, who wants lost fame and fortune back - and revenge (and PMThaksin is atypical Thai politician here - there’s no such thing as forgive and forget, hence GenSonthi’s fears)…
Simply put, these extreme measures are designed to limit, to neutralize the influence of money in politics - and naturally the largest and most well endowed parties, the opposing PPP and Democrats, are not happy. It’s logic is simple and reductive that without vote buying (whethe direct or indirect), PPP will not get the numbers in parliament. Unfortunately, this is not done in the true spirit of ‘free’ and ‘fair’ elections as it is an election hijacked by two men’s personal conflict. With these rules, it becomes an overt ‘guns’ vs. ‘money’ conflict.
With the election closing in, GenSonthi’s power is on the wane as this is PMThaksin’s game. From GenSonthi’s point of view, he has to make the most of his hand as deputy PM. After the election, the power of money will come to the fore once again. It will be a similar scenario to 2001 but will be much more costly for PMThaksin in bidding for MPs and political parties to join/support PPP (with assets from ShinCorp sale frozen, we’ll get to see the depth of his off-shore assets).
A big variable is how much PMThaksin wants back. To be prime minister again with every baht restored to family/cronies and all cases against him dropped? His political foes seem to assume so - and they probably have evidences kept from the public. For one, I am certain PMSurayud (and even PMPrem’s meeting with KYPotjaman) has been in contact with PMThaksin in the past. Contacts that didn’t lead to any deals made.
No, PMThaksin is not AjarnPridi or FMPibul. He is not willing to die in exile. GenSonthi, despite his background as a special forces soldier, is also not President Putin either and PMThaksin will not die of poisoning while watching a ManCity match…
3 thaiwoman // Oct 31, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Sidh. This is a good comment.
The comment “during the Thaksin era, but at least local electoral campaigns were vigorously contested in a climate of relative openness” is quite amusing, or would be if it were not so ironic, or incorrect. Sadly elections involved as much manipulation and intimidation then as they do now. If you had ever tried to campaign against TRT in its feudal heartlands in the good old days of Mr. Thaksin, and as some see it the height of all things good of the most vibrant period of Thai democracy, you would realise this. Not much changes in Thai Democracy. It is more a case of how different people try to argue their case based upon their own assumptions and biases. The same is true for both sides in this current spat. The lack of any analysis not based on taking one side or the other is not only trul astounding but also is a complete diservice to Thailand and its democracy.
4 Andrew Walker // Oct 31, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Thaiwoman - thanks for your comment. Any chance of some illustration or examples of the restrictions on local campaigning during the Thaksin era?
5 Srithanonchai // Oct 31, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Thaiwoman: The comment “during the Thaksin era, but at least local electoral campaigns were vigorously contested in a climate of relative openness” > I agree that this is a false generalization. However, I would like to join Andrew in encouraging you to provide concrete observations, both about past elections, but even more about the current election campaign. Moreover, Thaksin and TRT had nothing that much to do with the local campaigns, which seem to be the prerogative of locally-based groups and their MP candidates, under whatever party label they might have sailed in past elections and in the current one.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.