The judge made the proposal as he was dismayed by the months-long political impasse, partly the result of the Election Commission's unprecedented behaviour. In his opinion, the remaining three members of the EC have failed to help end the deadlock even though they are well capable of doing so.

Besides this personal disappointment, the judge indicated that the whole election law should be overhauled and new mechanisms introduced to plug the current loopholes.

In fact, today's model of the Election Commission was debated extensively back in the mid-1990s when the current Constitution, which was promulgated in 1997, was being written.

Charter writers back then were also mulling whether there should also be a specialised court to make rulings on elections and related cases. At the time, it was decided that the Election Commission alone would be sufficient as the courts or the Council of State could work with the EC on a case-by-case basis to serve as a check and balance. For instance, the EC currently needs a court ruling in favour of its decision to disqualify a candidate prior to an election before such a decision can become legally binding. Also, the EC currently needs the Council of State's endorsement of any yellow or red cards it issues against any disqualified winners of the election.

In both respects, it seems there is already a reasonable check and balance on the powerful EC as far as disqualifying candidates, pre- or post-election, is concerned. In fact, the real challenge facing the EC's future is more of a political and ethical nature than of a legal or structural nature.

Politically, the EC is only part of the larger issue, in which it has happened to be at the right place and at the right time. When Thaksin Shinawatra, the caretaker premier, called the snap election in February this year in the bid to solve his own political problems, he thought the polls would be a cakewalk. He ran into trouble only after the former opposition parties unanimously boycotted the election, turning it into a one-horse and undemocratic race.

Consequently, the EC's credibility came into question. Following the inconclusive April 2 election, the EC was left with little goodwill, if any at all. Nevertheless, it defied all criticism and attempted to continue to make the polls conclusive by holding by-elections. The second round of elections went through, but the third was stopped by a court injunction.

In hindsight, all members of the EC should have tendered their resignation immediately after His Majesty the King publicly urged all parties concerned, particularly the country's judiciary, to help solve the political impasse. At that point there were four election commissioners, but one, General Charupat Ruangsuwan, decide to quit shortly afterwards. At least Gen Charupat showed ethical responsibility in the wake of the failed national election, something the rest of the EC commissioners have not done so far. All three have consistently argued that they need to stay put, firstly to hold the next election, tentatively scheduled for October 15, and, secondly to forward to the Constitution Court the cases calling for the disbanding the two major political parties charged of violating the election law.

On the first point, caretaker premier Thaksin has already indicated that the next election would be postponed even further due to the unusual political situation. On the second, the EC's task is now over since the cases have already been submitted to the Constitution Court for a ruling.

There should be no further excuses for the remaining EC commissioners to stay in their posts for even one more day. The whole fiasco is simply the result of a woeful lack of political etiquette.

Nophakhun Limsamarnphun

 nop1122@yahoo.com