An acid-test for the new constitution

22 September 1998

We now have an acid-test for the new constitution: Vatana Asavaheme.

He has a certain approach to elections. After the 1995 polls, he told The Nation "I dumped a nine-digit sum of my own money. I won't say exactly how much because the issue is related to electoral laws."

For the 1996 polls, a simpler tactic seems to have been used: stuffing the ballot boxes. Last week the Supreme Court judgement on the election of Vatana and his two Prachakorn Thai colleagues ran: "police seized ballot-papers already marked in favour of the three defendants…Also, checks revealed that the number of ballot papers exceeded the number of people actually casting their vote according to official record by about 20,000. This shows that election officials may have marked ballot papers in favour of the defendants….Hence this election was improper and the Supreme Court should order a new election." The three got off on a technicality arising from the transition between two constitutions. Vatana celebrated. Chuan congratulated him. But the judgement was a clear condemnation.

Apart from the technical arguments, Vatana’s defence was based on the now legendary "Newin Chidchob defence" in the 1995 Buriram vote-buying case. The principle of this defence is: even if the election was crooked, you cannot pin the blame on the successful candidate; little people tend to be over-zealous; strange things happen that the candidate doesn’t know about.

After the 1995 poll (the nine-figure sum), Vatana was hoping to become minister of interior, in charge of law and order. And in charge of elections. Since the 1996 poll (the 20,000 stuffed votes) he has become deputy interior minister

Vatana may be very popular in his long-time constituency of Samut Prakarn. But if so, what is the point of this vast spending and this crude ballot box stuffing?

Before the Supreme Court ruling, Vatana said he would quit politics if the judgement went against him. But now he has "won", presumably he plans to run again at the next election. This is the acid-test of the new constitution: will Vatana remain MP for Samut Prakarn, and if so how will he do it.

Anand Panyarachun celebrated the new constitution as a landmark in Thai politics: "The quality of politicians will improve. The frauds in elections will decrease and more honest politicians will enter politics." But the cynics say: nothing much will change.

Optimists claim the new constitution makes it more difficult to use money and influence to gain a parliamentary seat. This hope is based on a certain view of how Thai elections work. In the past, simple vote-buying may have been effective. But with successive general elections, the voters have become more astute. Recent polls have seen some subtle bargaining. The local vote-bank promises to deliver the votes of the village or ward in return for the promise of a paved road, electric connection or whatever. Some money is paid up-front as proof of the candidate’s credibility and commitment. The candidate can check if the vote-bank delivers on the deal by monitoring the returns of each polling station. The candidate or vote-bank may be able to fix the result more directly by tampering with the ministry of interior officials running the election. In 2- and 3-member constituencies, local bosses bring friends or relatives in on their coat-tails, so that they have a ready-made parliamentary faction to support their bid for a ministership.

The new constitution sets out to attack this system at many points. The constituencies are broken up into single-member units. Vote-counting will no longer allow candidates to monitor the results locality by locality. An independent Election Commission is in charge. Penalties for corrupt electoral practice are more severe.

But the cynics say that the old rules will still apply. The new smaller constituencies will be easier to manage by the same old combination of money and influence. The Election Commission has no money and will have to rely on interior officials. The courts will continue to bow to the historic "Newin Chidchob defence".

Most of all, why should the people change the way they vote? They send tough nuts to parliament because such people are better at screwing some local benefit out of the central budget and central administration. They choose big guys because they spend some of their own money, ill-gotten or not, in the locality.

Here’s the real crux. Does the electorate actually like this system and find it effective? Or could it imagine something different and better? Optimists and cynics may argue back and forth. But in truth nobody knows. Nobody can be sure just how the mentality of the electorate is changing.

Vatana may sneak off to the party list. But if not, he will give us the acid test of the new constitution.

Will Vatana run?

Will Vatana win?

And how will Vatana win?