• 
• 

Published on March 27, 2008

The People's Alliance for Democracy has resumed its opposition campaign, and is bent on faulting the government for every imaginable malady.

Is Thai politics about to veer off course once again? Or is the brouhaha a sign of political immaturity; whining even before determining what the problem really is?

The government and its opponents are both trying to whip up a frenzy to support their respective stands. The rival camps have geared up for an all-out battle, without realising both are being paranoid.

Government leaders have committed to making a pre-emptive move for a charter rewrite because they fear a repeat of the disbandment of the Thai Rak Thai Party. Prime Minister Samak Sundarvej has alluded to an "unseen hand" that is victimising his People Power Party.

Chart Thai Party leader Banharn Silapa-archa has conceded that he is at a loss to pinpoint who is after his party, although he suspects a conspiracy to bring about his party's demise in retaliation for it joining the coalition.

The government is sounding the alarm even though the electoral fraud cases - the outcomes of which are seen as crucial to its survival - have yet to be argued in court. The PAD has in turn lambasted the government for abuse of power that it anticipates but which has not happened yet.

For democratic rule to advance, it is imperative that politicians of all stripes get a grip of reality instead of letting their animosity run wild.

At the heart of the paranoia is Article 237 of the 2007 Constitution. The government sees the provision as a weapon wielded by the junta to exterminate allies of ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The opposition movement is making a hasty battle cry to safeguard the provision, as if it is a foregone conclusion that PPP, Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya are dead parties walking.

Under Article 237 any electoral candidate who commits or supports another in violation of the law on the election of members of Parliament and senators will be disqualified.

If wrongdoing is proved by the individual, or should evidence be convincing to believe that the party leader or any party executives had foreknowledge of it, or lapsed in supervision, or failed to ensure fair and honest voting, then it is decreed that that party has achieved power by means not sanctioned under Article 68 of the Constitution.

If the Constitution Court rules to dissolve a party, then it is decreed to revoke the voting rights of the party leader and party executives for five years effective from the date of the party dissolution.

The provisions make it clear that the high court has wide leeway to rule whether to break up a party, but it is not mandatory nor automatic that a party will be disbanded if linked to fraud committed by one of its executives.

In the May 2007 verdict, the Constitution Tribunal ruled to disband Thai Rak Thai on the grounds that it paid small parties to contest certain constituencies in order to overcome a rule requiring a party to garner at least 20 per cent of the registered votes for candidates running uncontested.The tribunal found clear evidence of attempts to cheat the electoral process. But the electoral fraud cases involving executives of PPP, Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya have no similarities to the Thai Rak Thai case.

In the vote-buying case involving House Speaker Yongyuth Tiyapairat, the Supreme Court is about to commence trial before ruling whether to convict Yongyuth. Even if he is found guilty, the Constitution Court is expected to examine evidence whether his alleged wrongdoing brought about his party's victory.

Regarding the cases involving two party executives of Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya, the EC has ruled to disqualify the two candidates but has yet to decide whether to prosecute the two parties. The debate at this juncture is whether the parties should be tried in the light of lack of evidence of them condoning the wrongdoing.

Even if the EC decides next month to litigate against the two parties, the high court would still factor in the evidence of whether the violations committed by the two party executives altered the voting outcome.

The punishment of a party linked to electoral fraud and involving party executives is meant as a deterrent against cheating. In family law, parents of delinquent minors are accountable for the actions of children in their charge. But not all parents are penalised for every crime involving their children.

The writers of the 2007 Constitution framed provisions for party accountability on rogue executives. But it is wrong to assume that every judicial decision will break up a party if its executives are convicted of fraud.

AVUDH PANANANDA

THE NATION