In defence of the crucial, albeit controversial, process to resolve the prolonged political impasse, Thirayuth argues that judicial review has become necessary of late because Thailand's representational democracy had its weak points, which resulted in the inability to fully abide by the intent of the Constitution.

Thirayuth also considers His Majesty the King's April 25 speech, in which top judges were urged to step in to help resolve the political deadlock, as one of the most visionary messages, given that the country had no functioning parliament and the government was only a caretaker.

The Thammasat University lecturer also suggests that judicial review, if undertaken seriously, could help reform the country's political system in the long run. He cited India and Israel as examples where the high courts often expand their scope to cover more cases so that more ordinary citizens can be protected by law.

In this respect, the Thai Supreme Administrative Court's recent ruling against the privatisation of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) was also an example of a judicial review of the executive branch's authority, he said. It was based on the plaintiffs' plea that poor people would be severely affected by the listing of the power agency on the stock market.

The recent examples of judicial review will also serve as a deterrent against corruption and other dishonest acts by politicians and bureaucrats in future, he said.

When asked if the judiciary's "increasingly activist" role in politics would be counter-productive in the long run, he said the process of judicial review should not be seen as something separate from the overall democratic process.

"Judicial reviews are just like another check-and-balance mechanism of a democratic government. They are in parallel with the democratisation process. In fact, the philosophy of justice is much older than that of democracy."

Asked what could serve as a check and balance on judicial power, Thirayuth said academic and rational comments on the judiciary were not prohibited, even though there was the law against contempt of court.

"All in all, some have expressed reservations about judicial power. The US Supreme Court is a good example. Critics have pointed out several weaknesses of the US high court, such as that the judges are in the post for life, that they are not chosen directly by the public, etc.

"Yet, the strengths or benefits of the US Supreme Court system have clearly outweighed its weak points," he said.

Thirayuth also predicted that the country's months-long political crisis would not be resolved completely any time soon, even though there should be a new and respectable Election Commission set up relatively quickly to organise the next polls which, he said, should be fair and acceptable to all parties concerned.

He said such pessimism was based on his observation that Thai politics had become very self-serving of late, to the extent that it was now doubtful whether the public good was the top priority in the minds of powerful politicians.

Thirayuth also observed that political power has become very "unrefined". Ethics and political legitimacy are now things of which politicians could be considered "oblivious".

This kind of "realpolitik", or politics of raw power, will likely lead to further polarisation and tension in society. As a result, the Thai people will likely have to live in this atmosphere for some time, he said.

 Nophakhun Limsamarnphun

 nop1122@yahoo.com