• 
• 

Published on January 11, 2008

There is much to be admired in the selection process of US presidential candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties. The process is remarkable for the way in which ordinary people participate. US presidential candidates are put through a series of crucial tests that enable people to judge their character, intellectual capacity and communication skills. Although Thailand's parliamentary democracy is different, we can learn some valuable things and perhaps emulate or adapt some of the practices to improve the efficiency and efficacy of our seriously flawed democracy.

The US process puts politically aware people, particularly party members, at centre stage - which is the best way to enable the opposing parties to decide who, among a roster of candidates, has the best chance of winning the presidential election.

Candidates in each party have to undergo vigorous competition in a free and fair manner. During the selection process, candidates go all out to try to win over as many supporters as they can with their charm, wit and even some tricks and negative tactics against opponents - within the bounds of decency and the law. Obviously, big money counts for a lot in such competition. But ultimately, only the most worthy candidate with the most credible policy platform, and charisma, will emerge as the presidential candidate for each camp.

After each party selects its presidential candidate, the policies of all the candidates are harmonised as a final policy platform intended to appeal to the most voters. Both parties then focus their energies, campaign war chests, the whole bag of tricks to try to win the presidency. The US system is highly efficient in delivering the government that the majority of the people want.

By comparison, Thailand's party system and the way political parties are being run in this country leave a lot to be desired. There is little participation by the people in the selection of candidates either at the grass roots or the national level.

Most Thai parties, with the exception of the Democrats, are run by autocrats whose claim to leadership is the fact that they control the purse strings. Anyone with money to throw around to buy the loyalty of a handful politicians, preferably incumbent MPs, and get them to contest an election, can set up a political party.

In order to get legally registered, these so-called political parties can hire people to sign up as members and set up an executive committee made up of relatives, friends and yes-men. Once election time comes around, the party can spend a lot of money to buy enough votes to get its candidates elected to the House of Representatives. Having bankrolled their way to Parliament and power, they feel compelled to recoup their investment through corrupt practices.

Little wonder, then, that the quality of politicians in these bogus parties is low. Most of them have difficulty even in connecting two statements in an intelligible or logical manner - let alone forming a persuasive argument.

The leader of the pro-Thaksin People Power Party, which emerged as the biggest winner in the December poll, managed to avoid participating in any pre-election debates with other party leaders. It was widely suspected that PPP leader Samak Sundaravej may not even have grasped half of his own party's populist policy platform or what the PPP actually stands for. Samak himself has admitted that he serves as deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's political nominee. Yet Samak is now considered the top contender for the prime minister's job. That is, if the PPP is not dissolved for alleged poll fraud or for subverting an earlier Constitution Tribunal ruling to disband Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party and bar him and 110 other party executives from politics for five years.

Thailand's political system is in deep crisis. The election, which was supposed to put the country back on track to full and sustainable democracy, now threatens to plunge us into another political dead-end and more confrontation.

Thai society needs to find ways to push through drastic political reform that will reduce the impact of vote-buying on election outcomes while increasing people's participation in the democratic process. We can learn from the experience of the US and the successes and failures of other democracies.

The Nation