• 
• 

Published on September 6, 2007

 With indignation, the representatives of the present regime assert that Thailand is a democratic country with great experience in organising free and fair elections. For this reason, they imply, the very offer of the EU to send an observation mission is an insult to our country. Moreover, the propaganda suggests that the terms proposed for the mission in the EU's draft for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would violate the sovereign rights of the Thai kingdom. This shrill rhetoric has whipped up nationalistic emotions that threaten to prevent a rational and critical assessment of the EU's offer. 

A calm analysis of the EU's earlier missions to Ethiopia and Indonesia demonstrates that Thailand has nothing to fear from European election observers. European regulations (accessible on the Internet) require the consent of the host country for all observation missions and envision a partnership between the two sides. The MOU between Ethiopia and the EU in 2005 further clarifies: "The European Union agrees to ensure that its Election Observer Mission respects the country's sovereignty and laws and regulations including the code of conduct for the election process. It also agrees that it will ensure that its observers will not interfere in the electoral process."

Moreover, the MOU gave both sides the right to terminate the mission at any time. Ethiopia could expel individual observers if they failed to comply with the terms of the mission. These principles make clear that the EU intends election observations to be negotiated and carried out in an atmosphere of goodwill, trust and cooperation.

Criticising the EU's offer, the secretary-general of the Thai Election Commission has cited the 2004 Indonesian elections, which presumably demonstrates the negative impact European observers can have on a poll. The Thai press has reported that the EU sent a mission of 200 members to Indonesia without informing the government of the country. But the MOU between the EU and Indonesia makes clear that the European side undertook to provide their hosts not only with the names, but also with personal details on each of the observers.

The EC secretary-general has also referred to an unidentified Indonesian official who complained about the presence of European observers at the polling stations. But the EU's Code of Conduct for International Election Observers - which is attached to every MOU - requires that members of all missions must "avoid disrupting the voting and counting process". If observers fail to follow this rule, the host country can expel the individuals concerned or terminate the observation mission, as is also shown by the Ethiopian example.

Thai officials polemicising against the EU's offer have intimated that they could not tolerate seeing Thailand classified as a Third World country. In this view, the European initiative is a thinly disguised insult to our country. But the very rhetoric that demands respect for Thailand betrays a disdain for countries that have allowed their elections to be monitored.

Are Thais really justified to look down on nations such as Ethiopia, Indonesia, Venezuela, Mexico, or Russia and Slovakia? All of these nations - and more - welcomed election observation missions in the past two decades. Election observation missions are not an interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, but a common and accepted practice of international cooperation.

Political developments both before and after the coup show that the country can greatly benefit from an independent observation of its election, whether carried out by the EU or by other qualified institutions. With the intervention of the military, the deep crisis of the political institutions in Thailand has come to a head. The military coup, which was initially perceived by some advocates of democracy as a step towards the solution of the country's problems, has actually proven highly problematic itself. Any coup is, by definition, an undemocratic act justifiable only in extreme emergencies and after all others means have been exhausted. It is doubtful that these conditions were met in September 2006. The coup thus constituted itself a severe setback on Thailand's long and difficult way to democracy.

In the last years of the Thaksin government, Thai democracy faced serious challenges. Civil rights were eroded and the constitutional framework undermined. The leaders of the coup claim to have acted to redress those ills. They have pledged to hand over power to a democratically legitimised government. In actual fact, however, the junta has exacerbated the crisis of the democratisation process by censorship, restrictions on free speech and the freedom of assembly, and other measures. The new constitution has been drafted by an unelected assembly and the administration has kept the alternative to an acceptance of the proposal purposely vague. Moreover, the junta has stifled the campaign against the adoption of the charter.  These policies have left large segments of Thai society highly dissatisfied, as has been demonstrated by the outcome of the referendum.  At the same time, the record of the junta also casts doubts on the fairness of the upcoming election. As a result, the emerging political set-up suffers from a severe lack of legitimacy.

An observation of the upcoming elections by the EU can mitigate these difficulties and help to put Thailand's efforts at developing stable democratic institutions back on track. International election observation does not pose a threat to countries serious about democracy. Nor is it prejudicial to a nation's sovereignty or international standing.  Thai voters have the right to expect from their government a calm and rational cooperation with our international partners, which serves the country's best interest. We must not allow those who whip up nationalistic emotions for their own purposes to defeat the EU's offer for an Election Observation Mission.

Not a secret: The general principles of the European Election Observation Missions and documents on previous missions are freely available to the interested public:

* EU Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation

and Code of

Conduct for International Election Observers

http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/eu_election_ass_observ/do

cs/code_conduct_en.pdf

* Handbook for EU Election Observation Missions

http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/eu_election_ass_observ/do

cs/handbook_en.pdf

* EU Election Assistance & Observation > Missions - Archive

http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/eu_election_ass_observ/arc

hive.htm

* EU Election Observation Mission to Ethiopia

http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/eu_election_ass_observ/eth

iopia/index.htm

* Memorandum of Understanding Between the National Electoral Board of

the

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the European Union

Concerning

Election Observation, published by the National Electoral Board of the

Ethiopia

http://www.electionsethiopia.org/PDF/Memorandum%20of%

20Understanding.pdf

Morakot Jewachinda Meyer

Dr Morakot Jewachinda Meyer teaches at the Department of History in the Faculty of Social Sciences at Srinakarinwirot University-Prasanmitr, Bangkok.