Special:Senate 'independence' tests democracy

Fabian Society socialist and Irish dramatist George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) once said: "Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."

Election might not be a perfect means to find rulers. For Shaw, it was likely better than authorising a few corrupt people to choose who takes the helm.

The drafters of Thailand's planned constitution have shown their belief in that which runs contrary to the basic principle of democracy. They prefer undemocratic appointment to democratic election.

To be tested in Sunday's referendum, the draft allows for only half of 150 members of the Senate to be elected, with the rest being selected.

No matter how big their particular province, millions of eligible voters in each of the country's 76 provincial divisions will have equal rights to elect only one senator. Meanwhile, the draft authorises seven people, of whom three are judges, to select the remaining 74 senators to be "representatives" of the people.

Representation is a problematic issue.

There are various groups slated for selection - the state sector, business sector, academia, and other registered professional bodies. But what about representations for those in vocations such as street vendors and motorbike taxis? To that extent, the Senate could become a club of retired generals.

Somkid Lertpaitoon, secretary of the Constitution Drafting Committee, argues that a less-than-fully-elected Senate will still be democratic since many democratic countries with bicameral parliaments, such as the United Kingdom, have no elected upper chamber.

As many academics point out, the UK's House of Lords is the antithesis of democracy in that, until now, its seats have been hereditary.

The half-elected, half-selected Senate's remit would include installing independent and constitutional bodies. It would also have the power to impeach, among others, the prime minister and members of Parliament.

The drafters expressed their faith in a few good men when they designed their version of the checks-and-balances system as they want mostly judges to select members of independent bodies.

The seven "supermen" to select the independent bodies will comprise of representatives from the Supreme Court, Admi-nistrative Court, Constitution Court, the House Speaker and the opposition leader in Parlia-ment. They will have the authority to choose the Election Com-mission, the Ombudsman, the National Counter Corruption Commission and the State Audit Commission.

This move is in reaction to the previous regime's antics, by which the junta blamed deposed prime minister Thaksin Shina-watra for interfering in independent bodies and blocking them from scrutinising his administration. Thaksin's cro-nies on selection committees used bloc votes to get selected favourites into independent bodies.

Under the draft proposal, the two politicians on the seven-member selection committee would be a minority and unable to influence selections. So if the draft charter passes Sunday's referendum, "judicial activists" could control politics and administrations.

These judicial activists have never had political accountability, so they must prove they are not "the corrupt few", as Shaw mentioned.

Unfortunately, judicial activists emerged when this country was asking who was the real master bribing judges in the recent election-fraud case. Some said judges were not taking bribes, while others cynically said it was their wives accepting the bribes instead.

Whether this accusatory position has any veracity or not, the junta-backed constitution will certainly bring the judicial institution right into the den of politics.

It could spell the end of credibility in Thailand's judiciary.

Supalak G Khundee

The Nation