Thailand goes to the polls again, but when?
It could be months before Thailand goes to the polls again. New elections must be held because the Constitutional Court on Thursday declared the February 2 elections invalid.
Activists yesterday tied a gigantic black cloth around the Democracy Monument in protest against the verdict. Two grenades exploded near the home of one of the judges on Thursday evening.
The Electoral Council will consider the Court's ruling on Monday. Election Council Commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn says there are two options: 1 Electoral Council and government set a new election date, within 60 days from now; 2 The Electoral Council and all political parties consult about the election date, which need not be within the 60-day period.
Both options are based on a judgment of the Court in 2006. The elections in that year were also declared invalid. The political parties then decided to postpone the elections. They were supposed to take place in October 2006, but were canceled because the army staged a coup in September that ended the Thaksin government.
Court: Elections were unconstitutional
Yesterday, the Court ruled by six to three votes that the ballot box on February 2 was not in accordance with the law, because not all districts could vote simultaneously. It was based on the Royal Decree dissolving the House of Representatives and setting the date of the elections.
However, elections were not held on that day in 28 constituencies in the South because the registration of district candidates was prevented by anti-government protesters.
The law prescribes that elections must be held on one day. When re-elections are held in the 28 constituencies, it would mean that the election was not held in one day. The Court therefore ruled that the elections were against the law.
Pheu Thai: Conspiracy against the government
Former governing party Pheu Thai issued a statement yesterday calling the Court's ruling a conspiracy against the government. According to PT, the Court should not have dealt with the case because it was brought before the National Ombudsman. And the Ombudsman is not authorized to do so, PT believes. The party says the ruling sets a dangerous precedent for future elections.
PT also questions the attitude of the judges who made the challenged decision with a vote of 6 to 3. Some judges have often made life difficult for politicians and political parties, referring to the dissolution of Thai Rak Thai and the People's Power Party, the two parties that preceded Pheu Thai.
Abhisit: Judgment offers opportunity to break out of deadlock
Opposition leader Abhisit says the verdict offers Prime Minister Yingluck an opportunity to get out of the current political crisis by starting a dialogue with the protest movement. Both parties should sit down to see what can be done to mitigate the political conflict before new elections are held.
Red shirt chairman Jatuporn Prompan believes that the Court should have come up with suggestions on how new elections can be held without disruption.
Protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban said yesterday on the action podium in Lumpini Park that new elections should only be held after national reforms have been implemented. According to him, the 'great mass of the people' wants that. If the Electoral Council holds new elections soon, they will encounter even more resistance than on February 2, and that would be a waste of money, Suthep threatened.
Two grenade attacks at judge's house
The two grenade attacks on the night before the judgment day were ill-targeted if they were aimed at the home of Judge Jaran Pukditanakul, one of the judges who voted 'invalid'. They landed on houses 200 meters away from Jaran's house.
The first smashed through the roof of a house and landed next to the bed of the resident who was resting. He was injured by the shrapnel. The second hit a house 100 yards away, but no one was home. Witnesses say they heard three explosions, but police have only been able to confirm two.
(Source: Bangkok Post, March 22, 2014)
Unfortunately, holding elections in the short term will not resolve the current political impasse.
Those millions who voted for Pheu Thai, through their support and passive approval, are partly responsible for the arrogant and incompetent policies of the Yingluck government. The undemocratic and illegal actions of this government have resulted in another large part of the population having to revolt.
The ordinary Thai in both camps have never had the right to speak and within both elites one finds oneself and one's family so much more important than the well-being of the population and the promotion of the public interest.
If the only purpose of elections is to create a dictatorship of the majority for one of the two parties, after which the elected officials, under the guise of democracy, can do everything “what God forbids”. Then it might be useful to agree on a few rules (reforms) in advance. Otherwise we will all be back to square one after those elections. And the whole misery starts all over again.
It is absolute travesty that the Constitutional Court should make such a ruling. Almost 90% of the polling stations had normal voting. Suthep/Abhisith's club (who explicitly did not participate in the elections) managed to prevent voting in about 10% of the polling stations.
That simply means that every club in the future can sabotage elections (for which they themselves may or may not present candidates or participate as a party or not): simply voting on the relevant day in at least 1 (!!!) polling station is impossible and then the elections are invalid.
What an absurdist idea of the Constitutional Court.
In doing so, it honors the terror of a minority.
@ Teun That is what former government party Pheu Thai means by saying that this verdict creates a dangerous precedent for future elections. Whether that is the case, we do not know (yet). You would have to have the verdict for that. So far we only have a statement from the Court, which was issued after the hearing. The picture is not yet complete.
So the Zwarte Piet now goes to the Constitutional Court…
In a true democracy, a government, through its monopoly of power and violence, must be able to guarantee that everyone can vote in elections. Preventing voters from voting by opponents of the government falls under sabotage and ballot fraud. The fact that the elections did not go well was therefore legally the full responsibility of the Pheu Thai government.
From a purely legal point of view (that's what they're for) I think this is a very understandable ruling by the Court. So Pheu Thai shouldn't complain, but put his hand in his own bosom for once.
Furthermore, if you are a truly democratic party, you would not want to win elections, which are boycotted by a large proportion of voters. If you want to profit from this as a party, then you are morally completely wrong.
@ Eugenio In all the reports I have read about this so far, the Electoral Council is blamed for neglecting its task. He should have ensured that the elections would run smoothly.
I agree with your position that this is primarily the task of the government. But the government or Pheu Thai is too cowardly to recognize this. You can be sure that attempts will be made to accuse the Electoral Council of dereliction of duty by legal means.
Furthermore, I believe that it is still too early to judge the Court's ruling on its legal merits because we do not know the verdict. We only know of one statement that was issued. I think it's more for lawyers than lay people.
Eugenio, you say:
'The fact that the elections did not go well was therefore legally the full responsibility of the Pheu Thai government.'
You might as well argue that if a fire breaks out somewhere, the fire brigade should be held responsible. Or hold the police responsible for a theft and not the thief. The responsibility for sabotaging the elections rests entirely with the PDRC. If the government had deployed police and soldiers everywhere, deaths would almost certainly have occurred. It is to be commended that the government has taken such a restrained attitude and has managed to prevent situations like 4 years ago.
Dear Tina,
This is not just about a random fire…
In any civilized country, the government is responsible and accountable for the orderly conduct of elections, the protection of its voters and the officials who must facilitate it. If it cannot or does not want to do this, then it should not have elections called and should facilitate them.
Governing means looking ahead, and I have not been able to catch this government doing that so far. She doesn't like to take responsibility either. But afterwards adding fuel to the fire by accusing the Constitutional Court of a “conspiracy against the government”
PS I have also criticized the PDRC using the words “sabotage” and “ballot fraud”.
A state of emergency prevailed in Bangkok and surrounding districts on February 2, election day. The Electoral Council had already stated – in advance – that you cannot call these normal circumstances for an election. By the way: this state of emergency prohibits gatherings of more than 5 people. So every team of 9 people who had to man an election office is in violation, while the government wants to have some of them prosecuted for neglecting their duties. Could become a fun legal chess game if the government incites illegal behavior.
Conditions at the recent referendum in Crimea were 'more normal'. However, all Western democracies have wiped the floor with the result and do not recognize the result.
Which is to say that democracy is not synonymous with holding elections.
Let's take a look at the facts of the elections of February 2, 2014, based on 375 minus 69 electoral districts (in 69 districts the elections were complicated, in 9 provinces no votes were cast at all):
– turnout percentage: 47.7 % and 16.6 % voted “no-vote”;
– turnout percentage in Bangkok: 26% of which 23% voted 'no vote';
– Candidates could not register in 28 districts, so elections did not take place there. This means that at least 28 seats in parliament remain unoccupied and new elections are required. In some other districts there was only 1 candidate and the election of this one candidate only becomes valid if the turnout percentage is at least 20%.