A Constitution drafter’s thoughts on post-election Thailand
Pita Limjaroenrat has become an overnight sensation in Thailand after his stunning success in Sunday’s general election. Still only in his early 40s, Pita will become the youngest prime minister in Thailand’s 70-year political history if chosen by a majority of both houses of Parliament.
However, his path to the premiership will not be strewn with garlands or smoothed by the shock absorbers of his luxury car.
In reality, Pita faces a long, rough road ahead if he is to achieve his ambition of leading the country.
So, it came as a surprise on Monday when he hastily laid claim to the premier’s post, apparently without considering several important factors. Pita simply cited a mandate from members of the public who voted in huge numbers for his Move Forward Party. But wait a minute! As a former member of the committee that drafted the 2017 Constitution, I have to inform him that majority support does not mean you can seize the whole world.
Our Constitution was not written to assist a power play that claims all the rewards just days after a general election. In the context of democracy, being in the majority only confirms that you have a good chance of making your voice heard louder than others, nothing more.
Somehow the May 14 election became a “winner takes all” contest as the votes were counted on Sunday. Now, however, we need to go back to reality.
Several requirements for selecting and electing our prime minister were included in the current Constitution. However, we did not incorporate a requirement for parties to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or contract on the next PM. Although politicians generally ignore agreements on the table and focus on dealmaking, there is nothing unconstitutional about an MOU on the country’s next leader.
The “first-past-the-post” process is completed, and now come the procedures to select and elect a new PM that will be crucial for the incoming government. A majority of both houses combined, or at least 376 votes, is needed to secure the premiership. This will be no easy task for Pita, given his party’s 300 policies to “end dictatorship” and the fact that senators have no duty to cast their votes for him, despite his claims of a people’s mandate.
Pita may have misunderstood the Constitution or perhaps needs to read it more thoroughly. There is nothing in it that directs senators to vote in a specific way for PM candidates. More importantly, the supreme law states that politicians including senators, as well as all civil servants, must uphold the law and dedicate themselves wholly towards the national interest.
Nonetheless, I can appreciate that Pita needs to grab the spotlight right now, whether pushed by his team or his own ambition. After all, the road ahead is full of potential pitfalls. Not least is his alleged ownership of shares in a media company, a misdemeanour that saw his predecessor Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit disqualified as an MP.
Article 98 (3) of the current Constitution bars stakeholders in media companies from holding political office.
It is also worth noting that the Election Commission has only announced the preliminary results. We still have to wait to see whether it will find irregularities in any constituency polls. If so, it can issue a “yellow card” for a revote, “orange card” to either disqualify the guilty candidate or rerun the poll, or “red card” to impose a 10-year political ban plus a possible jail term and fine on the guilty candidate.
It is also too soon for certain senators – all of whom were appointed by the junta National Council for Peace and Order – to pretend to be bastions of democracy by declaring they will vote in line with Sunday’s majority. Their actions showed a lack of respect for their important posts and a lack of gratitude for five years of high salaries protected from inflation.
In contrast, I myself might be ridiculed for freely expressing my opinions as a royalist or someone who opposes the majority.
My outspokenness comes possibly from an education both in Thailand and abroad that taught me to speak my mind with honesty rather than seeking the spotlight or fame. Most of all, I was taught to speak the truth with no hidden agenda.
Move Forward is actually an auxiliary branch of the Pheu Thai Party, in keeping with several other parties. I cannot distinguish any fundamental differences or innovations between these parties of the so-called “democratic faction”. They applied the same basic marketing techniques as big corporations in Thailand. But their main purposes in the election were the same, namely to avoid the kind of risks that saw the Thai Raksa Chart party dissolved a few days before the 2019 general election and to boost their chances of winning by a landslide.
It is also too soon for Thailand to suddenly transform into a country like the United States or Britain. One thing is for sure, Thais are not ready to behave as well as British or American citizens. We can only feel comfortable with Move Forward’s 300 policies if we remember they will result in (among other things) a new armed forces, as Pita has vowed to abolish conscription.
Thailand has wandered far on its political journey over the past two decades, and I believe it’s time to take a rest in caring hands. We do not require Americanism, Anglicism, Modernism or Surrealism at this time. What we really need is to stand firm on our own feet for a while, amid the peace of our invaluable culture and traditions. This is a time for all Thais to serve and protect our motherland without claiming to be on one side or another.
Amorn Wanichwiwatana, DPhil (Oxon), is a former member of the Constitution Drafting Commission and currently a professor in the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
