 |
A reporter passes a Thaksin poster at Thai Rak Thai headquarters. |
We are now living in the land of “If”. If Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra steps down from politics, the situation in Thailand would return back to normal. Well, this “if” clause has been signalled over the past three months, but it looks like simply a semantic proposition.
Thaksin has argued that if he steps down, he wonders whether there is any guarantee that the political turmoil will end. How would he explain this to the 16.2 million voters who voted for him in the April 2 election? If the voters want him to stay on, what would he tell them? If he wants to continue to serve the country, why will people not allow him to do so?
But Thaksin, during his appearance on a Channel 11 TV talk show on Monday, said he is willing to consider stepping down, if a panel of former judges, former House speakers and former prime ministers can come up with the best solution for the country. What if the panel recommends otherwise?
Thaksin is also willing to discuss a way out for the country with the People’s Alliance for Democracy and the opposition parties if they are willing to meet him or if society accepts his proposal to form a special panel to look into a consensus. The PAD and the opposition have replied that they are ready to find a solution for the country if Thaksin resigns from office first.
One recommendation to end the impasse is that all parties must make one step backward. Thaksin has made his point clear that he has made several steps backward until his back is up against the wall.
“If I were to make another retreat, I would have broken through the wall,” he said.
Thaksin has lost his legitimacy to continue his premiership after his family sold Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings of Singapore on January 23 for a tax-free Bt73.3 billion. Academics, activists and the middle-class have called for his resignation. Thaksin’s response was to dissolve Parliament and call a snap election.
Then he challenged the Thai public to vote for or against him. If they thought that he should continue to be prime minister, they should vote for Thai Rak Thai. If not, they could mark a “no-vote” on the ballot sheet. The crisis surrounding Thaksin’s leadership has led the country to an either/or situation.
The election then turned into a farce. It was not a normal election like in other democratic systems. There was only one major party running while the rest were only nominee political parties. Opposition parties boycotted the election. So the election outcome would result in an automatic victory for Thai Rak Thai.
But the election looked more like a referendum on Thaksin. Voters either voted Thai Rak Thai or went for a “no-vote”. Out of the 28 million votes cast, Thai Rak Thai got about 16 million against 10 million for “abstain votes” or no votes. There were almost two million spoiled votes, an abnormally high number because a lot of people wrote abusive remarks on their ballot sheets. Thaksin may win the popular votes, but he does not get a mandate. And the mandate against him cries louder in this particular election.
What if Parliament cannot be convened on schedule or 30 days after the election? Thaksin did not discuss the problematic 38 constituencies where Thai Rak Thai candidates failed to muster 20 per cent of the eligible votes. If the Election Commission were to hold election after election and still could not find winners, what would happen to Parliament? If it submits the election stalemate to the Constitution Court for a ruling, what would be the outcome? Would the Election Commission ask for a measure to allow other parties to apply and stand in the elections to break the deadlock?
What if Thaksin has decided to resign eventually? Well, that has proved to be wishful thinking over the past three months. You have to maintain an indifferent posture. Whatever will be will be. In the end, the country will find a way out because, with this election, we have become mature enough in our political education.
|
