• 
• 

Published on March 7, 2008

The Senate faces a challenge in restoring the public's trust in the Upper House system. The Senate is supposed to be the anchor in ensuring an effective system of checks and balances. But by accident or design, it seems to be facing so many insurmountable hurdles as it tries to meet expectations. The writers of the 2007 Constitution gave birth to the upper chamber as a non-partisan body and then left it like an orphan to weather the harsh elements of partisan politicking. The new batch of 150 senators are expected to rein in government bigwigs from the prime minister down to his minions, although they have yet to be given the tools needed for the job.

When the first elected Senate was introduced into the political system by the suspended 1997 "people's charter", hopes ran high about punishing rogue politicians by impeachment. The public soon found out the ugly truth about having a paper tiger in their midst, rather than an effective legislative claw for political cleansing.

Following the September 2006 coup, the country's elite decided to root out corruption by enhancing the mandate of graft busters. This was to be accomplished by enacting three organic laws relating to the National Counter Corruption Commission, the State Audit Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman. The idea was that strong anti-graft provisions would in turn facilitate the impeachment proceedings in the Senate to get rid of corrupt office holders. Alas, the three organic laws were nullified by the high court on the grounds of a lack of a quorum required for their passage. To this day it remains a mystery whether the laws were stillborn because of an accident or a conspiracy not to upset the free smorgasbord enjoyed by politicians of all stripes.

Two things are clear, however. The fight against corruption remains tough talk, but there is no tangible action. And the Senate is still in limbo as to whether it can hold politicians accountable for abuse of power and graft.

Under the revamped political system - but without actual teeth to sink into political wrongdoers - senators are left on their own to win the public's trust. The one duty that they have any realistic hope of accomplishing is the screening of candidates to hold office in independent organisations.

A first litmus test to prove their credibility will come later this month in the senatorial debate to name nine judges to the Constitution Court.

But before getting down to the first job, senators are slated to set their own house in order by electing a speaker, which is scheduled for next week.

Lertrat Ratanavanich has emerged a top contender to lead the Senate. How smoothly or rough-and-tumble the senators choose their speaker will be a key indicator about the working atmosphere within the upper chamber.

From the start, the 76 elected senators have appeared to favour one of their peers as the speaker. They are unwilling to work in the shadow of the 74 appointed senators. Many fear that, as an appointee, Lertrat would sideline them. If the Senate is to gain political relevancy, it should function as a unified body by refusing to allow the petty rivalry of appointees versus elected members to spiral out of control. The upper chamber is likely to drift further into obscurity if senators opt to become quarrelsome instead of working together. Senators have yet to prove themselves worthy of the responsibilities placed on their shoulders. And they have to dispel doubts about their individual qualifications.

Of the 74 appointees, 47 are older than 60. It is not a joke but a realistic depiction of the upper chamber as a club for senior citizens. Of the 76 elected senators, all are local figures from businesses, local administrations and assemblies, along with a pool of retirees such as teachers, policemen and provincial administrators. One exception is Rossana Tositrakul from Bangkok, a national figure known for her political activism.

Aside from 27 who joined the senatorial race for a second time after their 2007 election results were cancelled, the others are complete novices in national politics.

In spite of all the odds against them, senators are obliged to rise to the challenge in order to prove they are a credible force in curbing the runaway power provided by the rule of the majority.