• 
• 

Published on March 1, 2008

The direct election of 76 senators tomorrow takes on greater importance as it becomes clear that divisive politics and corruption are expected to continue to weigh down on Thailand's latest attempt to rebuild democracy. Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra may have promised to stop manipulating national politics for now, but those may be empty words. Maybe he did not really have to make that promise, given the fact that the Samak administration has already revived many of the ousted prime minister's dismal legacies, characterised by populist policies and demagogic tendencies. With the coalition controlling an ample majority in the House of Representatives, the opposition Democrats alone cannot do much to stop the potential harm of ill-conceived policies or government excesses.

The opposition is going to need all the help it can get from the new Senate to do an effective job as a check and balance. The upper chamber is charged with important responsibilities, including scrutinising laws passed by the House of Representatives, censuring the government, the hiring and firing of appointees to high public office and independent watchdog agencies. If the Senate is politically neutral and performs its duty as intended, it can contribute significantly to bringing balance to our parliamentary democracy. The idea of elected senators, which goes back to the 1997 Constitution, offered high hope that members of the upper house would be able to serve the people unencumbered by partisan interests.

People look to the Senate for its supposed high-minded, impartial reasoning and good judgement on issues of national importance. If previous Senates were any guide, the public has been sorely disappointed, as most of the senators were political old-timers, particularly former MPs and retired government officials. Only a small minority were academics, social workers and independent thinkers. The problem was that the majority of those senators with political connections couldn't be trusted as it was much easier to profess impartiality than to practice it. It turned out that many senators were wolves in sheep's clothing.

The credibility of the previous Senate suffered when it became clear that the then-Thaksin government and the majority of senators had developed special and friendly relationships. This unholy alliance between the Senate and the Thaksin administration became more obvious when many senators began to pander to every whim and fancy of the government instead of discharging their duties without fear or favour. Worse, political interference by the Thaksin administration eventually led to the seriously-flawed selection of people to serve on the then-National Counter Corruption Commission and Election Commission, among other watchdog agencies that play a crucial role in keeping the government honest and accountable. People known to have close ties with the powers-that-be were nominated and appointed to those offices.

The country's watchdog agencies started losing credibility as a result of heavy-handed interference by the Thaksin government, which became increasingly more authoritarian despite being democratically elected. The weakening of the checks and balances mechanisms enabled the former prime minister to consolidate unprecedented political power and to pursue his self-interests at the expense of the public interest, spawning a long series of corruption scandals.

These painful lessons should serve as a reminder to all voters to exercise their voting rights carefully because every vote counts in determining the kind of people that get to serve as senators.

Admittedly, a senatorial election does not attract the same interest from the public as compared to the election of members of the House of Representatives. This is partly because senatorial candidates are subject to more restrictions in canvassing for votes. Many of the candidates are not well-known personalities. Many of those with recognisable names have already served in the first Senate and are now legally barred from seeking re-election.

That's why many find it difficult to make their choice. However, faced with little-known candidates, voters must take the time to learn as much as possible about their background, track record, personal integrity and demonstrable impartiality. This in order to ensure that they are not part of the dirty politics based on the corruption-prone patronage system, or have close links with politicians. 

The Nation