The Constitutional Drafting Committee last week adopted a key element in the new charter by ruling that the prime minister’s post would henceforth be open to people other than members of the legislature.

Thailand has had many non-elected premiers in its history, but only under the rule of authoritarian figures, primarily from the military. Citizens, though, have long struggled to have the final say about who runs the government. It is right and legitimate for people to choose their own leader, yet the constitution’s drafters are now behaving as though “father knows best.” The authors of the new charter are seasoned enough in politics to recall the upheaval of May 1992, and indeed October 1973, when people sacrificed their lives to ensure that the public could choose the person filling the top post.

General Suchinda Kraprayoon staged the 1991 coup to topple the elected government of Chatichai Choonhavan and issued a constitution that forced elected politicians to name him prime minister. He occupied that position for just 47 days. Then came Black May. Society as a whole understood that the country’s overall leader had to be elected by general vote.

The subsequent “social contract” embodied in the 1997 Constitution made it clear that only elected members of the House of Representatives were qualified to lead the country. The middleman, the outsider and the man on horseback are not welcome in politics. Military officers who love their country and want to use their abilities and knowledge to help it should contest the elections. If they’re good enough, they’ll be elected.

From Chatichai to Chuan Leekpai, Banharn Silpa-Archa, Chavalit Yongchaiyut, Thaksin Shinawatra, Samak Sundaravej, Somchai Wongsawat, Abhisit Vejjajiva and Yingluck Shinawatra, all were duly elected to the position. Thailand developed accordingly. There was evidence of corruption in some cases, but the law is there to punish them if they are found guilty.

The CDC claims the constitution should include the option for picking an “outsider” to help resolve political crises. Invoking the calls ahead of the May 22 coup for a “good person” to replace Yingluck to break the political impasse, the CDC points out that the 2007 Constitution allowed for no such solution. It clearly stated that only an elected MP could become prime minister. The CDC must consider whether a genuine political crisis required such manipulation. What would have happened if Abhisit rather than Yingluck were still in government? Our political history shows that coups only occur when the military opposes the government, regardless of the constitutional strictures in place.

In the parliamentary system, a political impasse is relatively easy to overcome by dissolving the House and thus automatically ending the government’s term. Then the effort begins to recast the new leadership.

In this year’s political impasse, rather than staging a coup, General Prayut Chan-o-cha could have resigned from the army, joined any political party and trumpeted his reform proposals in the February election campaign. He might have been elected prime minister and his reforms might now be enjoying strong support both at home and abroad rather than facing criticism.

The parliamentary system, well tested over the centuries around the world, offers the ability to resolve crises if the elite sector is clever and calm enough to allow it to work properly. Democracy can never mature here amid constant calls for “good middlemen” from outside parliament to solve the problems.

(Editorial, The Nation)

(Asia News Network)