• 
• 

Published on October 29, 2007

The Election Commission's (EC) issuance of new rules governing campaigns by political parties participating in the December 23 general election is an example of good intentions gone bad. The regulations, designed to ensure that all political parties whether big or small, have equal access to publicity and media exposure, turned out to be too rigid and impractical, if not also counterproductive to efforts to promote political awareness among members of the public. In a way, it is understandable that the EC wanted to restrict access to publicity and media exposure. Without such restrictions, big, cash-rich political parties with their formidable war chests could easily dominate the airwaves, while poor, relatively obscure parties would hardly have any opportunity to communicate their policy platforms to a wider audience.

Surely the EC must have studied how the Thai Rak Thai party of deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra managed to bankroll its way to a landslide victory in the 2001 polls through effective use of publicity campaigns combined with well thought out populist policies.

The Thai Rak Thai party was able to bombard all members of society with a slew of advertisements in newspapers, magazines and electronic media, which combined to create a bandwagon effect and gave rise to the perception of the party's popularity and invincibility. There was no question that the Thai Rak Thai ran an extremely successful propaganda machine backed by Thaksin's fabulous wealth.

But that does not mean the EC should come up with measures that are widely considered by people to be overkill in its effort to control the way political parties campaign in the upcoming election.

Examples abound that show the EC has gone overboard in its attempt to ensure absolute fairness at the expense of common sense. One such example is the rule prohibiting news agencies, educational institutions and private organisations from organising public discussion forums without permission from the EC or without all parties taking part in the election being equally represented. It has become clear that the EC does not trust these agencies to be fair to all political parties. But then the EC should have realised that there is no such thing as absolute fairness.

Although there are now more than 70 registered political parties in this country, only half of them are expected to participate in the upcoming election. Among the parties that will field candidates in the election, probably fewer than 10 will actually win seats in the House of Representatives, and only a handful of those, probably five or six parties, are likely to win enough House seats to be considered significant players in national politics. The EC's push to ensure absolute fairness in terms of equal access to publicity and media exposure must be weighed against the public's perception of the relative  importance of political parties worthy of their serious consideration.

There is no reason why news media outlets, universities and private organisations should not be trusted to exercise their own powers of discretion and invite only politicians belonging to political parties that are considered serious contenders in the election to discuss their policies and address members of the public.

That is not to say that politicians belonging to obscure parties do not deserve to have equal access to the media. It simply is a fact of life that people tend to pay more attention to politicians, good or bad, who have some experience, a discernible track record and some achievements or failures behind them than to political neophytes who will require years before they can make their presence felt.

This is not an attempt to discriminate against unknown politicians or obscure political parties. It is just how the public's minds work to prioritise and focus on who they should pay attention to given the limited time they have, and according to their range of interests.

There are also other EC rules that need fixing, including petty regulations on the type of electioneering methods permitted.

It is good that the EC, mindful of public criticisms, has shown a readiness to reconsider some of the excessively strict and impractical rules or those that it would not be able to enforce. There is no shame in admitting that the EC is not the sole arbiter of what is good for democracy. It takes all citizens to ensure a free and fair election and a successful restoration of democracy in this country.