Following on from yesterday’s post, in which I put the case against voting for the Democrats, now we will have a look at the merits (or otherwise) of the smaller parties.
In the political system (and dual voting) in Thailand, it is very unlikely that some of the so-called smaller parties would ever be elected on a wave of emotion, to make a government in its own right. Indeed most small parties in Thailand are not geared up that way. Nor indeed do they field enough candidates to make more than a small ripple in the political pond (if you follow my colourful metaphors).
This runs contrary to the usual way political parties work in the West. With a first-past-the-post (hereafter referred to as FPTP) system political parties, if they want to govern, have to think and act big.
So why are there so many small parties in Thailand? Is it a result of the Electoral Commission having too strong a say, in that with only scant evidence they can disband parties and banter party executives? I don’t know the answer.
What surprises me about some of these small parties is that they appear to operate like a “thiefdom” for the leader of the party. They count on the fact that it is likely that the party that wins the most votes/seats won’t have a majority big enough to govern on their own. [Only Thaksin's TRT party has done this in Thailands recent (and sadly short) political history.] They figure that if the winner of the election has to “do deals” with the smaller parties, to get their support and become part of a coalition government.
This is all well and good and accepted political behaviour in Thailand, irrespective of it seeming alien to Western political practice.
What annoys me about this practice is the seeming lack of ambition. If you go into an election not expecting to win why bother, you legitimately could ask.
Perhaps it is showing us a different form of ambition? If the small party were led by a politician who believe themselves to be important. That they could agree to be in a coalition purely to see what they can get out of it, is in my eyes and disgraceful and underhand way of operating.
This is why I am surprised that BhumJaiThai has MP’s. Up until by-elections last year, many BhumJaiThai MP’s were originally elected to the last parliament as members of the People Power Party (PPP). After that was disbanded (some say unfairly – remember it turned out Suthep had offered to pay some people to lie to EC about vote buying – and when this emerged the EC effectively shrugged its shoulders and said, what can we do now? And did nothing.) some members of the PPP joined in newly formed BhumJaiThai. Nothing wrong with that, however, when they then go on to support the Democrats, helping to keep them in power, it makes me wonder how well they are serving their electorate who (remember) voted them into parliament as PPP.
My point, if you haven’t got it yet, is that politicians are voted in to represent their constituents. What BhumJaiThai did in essence was say, thanks for electing us, but now we are going to persue a path that suits us and not the wishes of our constituents. When the people of Isaan voted them in as PPP, i doubt that they wanted their MP to keep the Democrat Party in power.
I was very surprised that many BhumJaiThai MPs kept their seats in by-elections last year. I can only assume that there must have been a degree of ignorance in the voters minds. There was certainly voices raised about possible vote-buying and shinanigans happening. This is hardly surprising when you look at the de facto (behind the scenes) leader of the party, Newin Chidchob.
If you live in Isaan I would suggest that a vote for BhumJaiThai is a vote for a party that is more interested in furthering its own influence (at the expense of its own voters if needs be). They appear to be in politics to see how deeply they can stick their collective ‘noses in the trough,’ with a ‘what’s in it for me’ attitude.
This is why I refer to BhumJaiThai as BhumJaiKwai. Please do not vote for them.
