Appointed Senate 'would give bureaucrats a share of power'
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation
A legal expert who once served deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra supports an appointed Senate in the draft constitution, saying it will allow bureaucrats to have a place in the new power-sharing scheme.
Bowornsak Uwanno, former cabinet secretary under Thaksin and former dean of Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Law, said if the Upper House is elected, rural voters - who constitute the majority of the electorate - would select only politicians, leaving no space for bureaucrats and the military.
"Elections under the Thai democratic system are an exchange process informed by the patronage culture.
"The rural poor vote to repay the patronage they receive," said Bowornsak, during Chulalongkorn University's Law Faculty annual dinner on Tuesday night.
"We cannot allow the patronage culture to remain the way it is, but it cannot be changed without altering the production mode.
"Only when people have enough to eat can we inculcate people with democratic culture," he said.
"An elected Upper House would lead towards double representation of the rural poor while maintaining the party list system would enable the middle class to enter parliament," he said.
If bureaucrats or the middle class feel left out of politics they will revolt - or tear up yet another constitution, he said.
Unlike in the West, Bowornsak said the Thai middle class sometimes resorts to undemocratic means to maintain its interest, such as during the events leading up to the September 19 coup and their support for the coup makers afterward.
"As long as the middle class has another option to protect their rights the middle class will accept coups.
"To them, democracy is but a means to an end and so they will accept whichever method for their own good - even if it's undemocratic," he said.
Bowornsak, who is now a member of the junta-appointed National Legislative Assembly (NLA) and secretary of the King Prajadhipok Institute, cited the institute's recent survey which revealed that two-thirds of the middle class people questioned said they prefer economic well-being to democracy.
However, he criticised charter drafters for trying to re-design the constitution to make future governments weak.
"They intended it to be so - but this is not right."
He also warned drafters not to give too many rights to ordinary people, claiming homeless beggars could sue future governments if they fail to provide them with shelter.
"Where will we get the money from, if not from the middle class?"
Putting too much state policy into the charter would also make it impossible for future administrations to come up with their own policy, said Bowornsak, who was a charter drafter for the 1997 constitution.
"What right do they have to determine the future of posterity? It will make future governments' work difficult."
Bowornsak also criticised the limiting of the prime minister's term to two years instead of four as this was against the notion of the rule of the people.
"Are they trying to tell the people that their view is more important than that of the people's?"
He urged drafters to look at the Swedish constitution and learn how it contains the extreme abuse of both state and private ownership of the mass media.
Bowornsak said he supported total deregulation of all Thai industries to make the economy more competitive, while maintaining a level of welfare and sufficiency policy for the rural and urban poor.
Bowornsak has the same song and dance as he did when he was developing the last constitution.
He opposed an elected Senate back then also. But he lost that battle.
Bowornsak is one of those guys who plays both sides of the fence as much as possible.
He is a staunch royalist, yet he was Thaksin's cabinet secretary up until a few months before the coup.
He says he is for democracy, but only democracy for the elites.
This guy is also the same dude who went to the US to threaten Paul Handley over "Why the King Never Smiles. He is a defender of the Ramkhamhaeng Stone myth.
How he ever became Dean of Law at Chula is beyond my imagination. But he comes from the French legal tradition, which probably explains his faith in the bureaucracy and his love for the state.
Also, I really find his criticism of patronage politics fascinating. This is a man who served many important patrons during his recent political career: Meechai, Prem, Chatichai,Thaksin and Sonthi.
Now that I look at his career, he should have never gone into law, but should have become a double agent instead.
This is the same man who put his career on the line to defend Thaksin crony, Dr. Surakiart Sathirathai, during the Dr. S/ Match Box scandal in the early 90's.
This is a little off topic. But when I started to dig a little, it is fascinating what things come up, which is why I always insist that Thaksin is irrelevant, because as long as the same class of cronies, academics, and politicians keep doing their double dealing and corruption behind closed doors without the glare of the media shining upon it, nothing will change.
The whole system is rotten to the core. And no, it is not because of the poor peasants voting for the wrong guys. They are not part of multi-billion dollar corruption deals that are handled only at the very top of Thai society.
Also, what else is interesting is that the more I read about the old scandals from the 90's, especially the Dr. S scandal, I've come to realize why so many people believe that Thaksin hired Edelman/Adelman to start a public relations campaign against the junta. The conspiracy is plausible in the context of looking at the past. Thai politicians really do go to any lengths to destroy their enemies, cover up their schemes, and protect their ill gotten gains.
