The future of the Senate may prove to be a most contentious issue that could make or break the constitution draft.

Die-hard supporters of the Thai Rak Thai Party and anti-coup activists are gearing up to incite public opposition to the draft on grounds that an appointed Senate is a setback for democratic rule.

They plan to cast doubt on the senatorial appointment process as an avenue for coup leaders to pull strings after the general election and beyond.

Some opinion-makers from academia have voiced concern at the possible domination of the Senate by the bureaucracy, reminiscent of the half-baked democracy in the 1980s.

The debate on the Senate revamp might degenerate into an emotional spat if concerned parties harbour grudges instead of trying to make an informed decision on the charter rewrite.

Since embracing democratic rule in 1932, Thailand has adopted the parliamentary system. The core of the Thai Parliament has been the bicameral legislation, comprising two chambers, modelled on the United Kingdom's Westminster system.

Even though the political system has evolved through the times to incorporate features from the European parliamentary system, notably from France and Germany, the heart of Parliament always comprises the House, the Senate and the Monarchy.

Before the promulgation of the 1997 Constitution, the Senate was an appointed body - the Thai version of UK's House of Lords.

Unlike the Westminster system where the rise of the House of Commons representing popular votes forced the House of Lords - or hereditary peerage - to take a backseat, the early days of Thai democratic rule saw the Senate dominating the House.

This happened because political parties were then weak and in the formative stage.

The appointed Senate represented the ruling class, comprising those from the People's Party responsible for the peaceful transition from the absolute monarchy.

For more than three decades after the introduction of popular democracy, political parties remained a foreign concept to rural voters and the leading military and civilian figures exploited partisanship to fight their proxy war for power.

Democracy advocates saw the domination of the ruling elite to have crippled the development of political parties and lamented about the illusory popular democracy plagued by money politics.

The 1992 Bloody May uprising triggered the outpourings of support to push forward the popular democracy. This in turn paved the way for the framing of the people's charter heralded for incorporating the best democratic features from various models around the world.

During the 1996 drafting process, it so happened that public sentiment somehow associated elections as the only acceptable means to secure office. Many leading figures called for the abolition of the appointed Senate.

Some even suggested that Parliament consist of the House alone.

In a compromise, the 1997 Constitution prescribed for the first-ever elected Senate. It also devised the new electoral system banning senatorial candidates from campaigning and having any party affiliation.

Thailand was the first and only country under the Westminster system to have an elected but non-partisan Senate by direct voting. However, two senatorial elections proved the new system impractical to implement.

The House of Lords is always an appointed body (at least for now). Australia and New Zealand allow partisanship via proportionate voting. Malaysia has opted for a hybrid system - setting quotas for appointed senators and for those indirectly elected by the states.

In one of the key guidelines laid out by the 35-member Constitution Drafting Committee, the Charan Pakdithanakul subcommittee has decided to revert back to the appointed Senate.

The subcommittee is in the process of soliciting opinions on how to allocate the senatorial seats. Charan has circulated an idea that various professional groups should be involved to nominate candidates, hence giving a semblance of indirect vote.

The idea of involving professional groups is meant to avoid a repeat of giving the government a free rein to handpick and dominate the Senate. 

It is still too early in the drafting process to predict the final format to appoint senators.

It is one thing to debate the pros and cons of the new direction for the Senate, but it would be misleading to mount a blanket attack of the appointed Senate as undemocratic.

Under the parliamentary system, the role of the upper chamber is designed for checks and balances to prevent abuse by the majority. Senators are supposed to ensure the common good rather than be involved in a popularity contest.

Avudh Panananda

The Nation