Jump to content
BANGKOK 25 April 2019 03:21
Sign in to follow this  
webfact

'National unity government' dangerous and undemocratic

Recommended Posts

'National unity government' dangerous and undemocratic  

By The Nation

 

images.jpg

 

Moves to engineer a pseudo-deadlock to justify ‘neutral’ rule ignore the will of voters

 

A so-called national unity government has always been a favourite gambit for Thai politicians who lose elections. By utilising this benign-sounding concept they can sweep aside the voters’ verdict and prevent opposing factions from taking power.    

 

Advocates call it “national unity government” despite knowing full well that no such government can exist. Non-partisan Thai politicians simply no longer exist in this era of deep and bitter national division.

 

It was sad though predictable, then, to see the Democrats’ Thepthai Senapong float the idea again, after his party suffered a huge setback in the March 24 election. Exploiting the Election Commission (EC)’s apparent inability to produce a clear result, Thepthai has sought to convince the public that a national unity Cabinet is badly needed.

 

His idea immediately fails the test of credibility with his proposal that former prime minister and Democrat patriarch Chuan Leekpai lead the “unity” government. No neutral observer believes that Chuan is non-partisan.

 

In reality, and contrary to Thepthai’s claim, the current political phase has not yet reached a dead end. There are many moves still in play – provided the EC works diligently to produce the final election result and the military elite allows the game to proceed without intervening.

 

First of all, the EC must make a clear decision on the formula used to calculate the number of party-list MPs, in accordance with the Constitution and election law. The commission should stick to the formula indicated in the charter. Using its own proposed formula would invite more trouble rather than a solution, since it would bring too many parties into the equation. More importantly, any such method might be unconstitutional.

 

The rules of the game dictate that the election winner is the party which manages to obtain the most seats. This gives it the legitimacy to gather a coalition to form the new government. The popular vote is irrelevant in the parliamentary system. The only majority that counts is that of seats in the House of Representatives.

 

While the junta-sponsored charter allows the 250 appointed Senators to vote for a new prime minister, they should bear in mind that they are unelected figures and sit in parliament without a mandate from the people. It is undemocratic to vote against the people’s will. The group with the most seats in the lower house gets to nominate its candidate as prime minister, and senators would be defying the democratic will if they opposed that nomination.

 

Like it or not, the military and the elite who will be handpicked by the junta to sit in the Senate should set a precedent by voting in accordance with the will of the people, not that of the junta.

 

The election was far from perfect, but the elite, military and notably the junta must accept the outcome of a situation that they themselves created. The junta should now allow its opponents the chance to form a government to run the country, as mandated by the people.

 

Using underhanded legal tactics and other dirty tricks to retain power is not acceptable. The people delivered their verdict via an election by whose rules all parties agreed to abide. That process and its outcome are the only effective solution to the deep and lasting political problems in this country.

 

All parties must now allow the EC to do its work in accordance with the constitution and law. The elite, military and junta must not use their influence to force the agency off its course. 

 

If the system functions properly, a so-called national unity government will be unnecessary. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30367806

 

thenation_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright The Nation 2019-04-17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, webfact said:

provided the EC works diligently to produce the final election result and the military elite allows the game to proceed without intervening.

there you have it, zero for two ; no positive result

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

87 years and counting. The inability of the military, who often squabble between themselves, to let go of govt and leave it to the people continues. They have never yet considered the people fit to rule this country and have used the same anti-monarchy, socialist-communist arguments since 1932. 

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Using underhanded legal tactics and other dirty tricks to retain power is not acceptable.

But it has been for all that time and will almost certainly continue to happen. If they cant rule by dictatorship they will at least continue to meddle, interrupt and resist until the situation calls for the military to bring 'peace and control' to the rowdy streets of Bangkok. After all the repeats already seen surely no-one imagines it cant happen again.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trough is not big enough to accommodate a national unity gov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thai choices:

A) Rinse and repeat.

 

B) Drain the swamp. (sorry to borrow that tried, failed and worn out expression)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay being Canadian I may have missed something our system is not great but it works.

 

Why do people that did not even run for parliament get in and what is the reasoning for having people sit that are not elected therefore not responsible to the people.

 

The Canadian system is simple and idiot proof.  Each party elects a leader.  the country is divided up into ridings.  People have the choice of electing the person that they feel is best for their riding or they can vote for the party of their choice.  It is either or.

 

Once the election is over the party with the most elected members is asked by the GG (Queen's rep) to form the government.

There is no coalition formed between parties. If you have the majority then great go for it

If you are not a majority then you have to be careful what you p[ut out as policy and make sure that enough of the other parties will support you.  If not BYE BYE.

tHE pm IS THE PERSON THAT IS THE LEADER OF THE WINNING PARTY.

 

Simple 1 vote one rep.

 

Besides the corruption why do you need non-elected people

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commenting as a fellow Canadian, I find your explanation very confusing.

(and we have been known to form coalition governments)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...