Thai Parliament dissolved, new elections underway

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/24/thailand.government/

So opebo, does this show weakness on Thaksin's part? We can hope this results in Thaksin's ouster, even though that seems like a long shot. A more likely favorable scenario would be his majority greatly diminished.

[Colin]

I heard that Thaksin was in trouble but I didn't thing that they would call snap elections. I really have no idea what the result will be. Will Sinawatra's rural backers countinue to support him in the polls or will there be enough of a backlash to allow the Democrats and other smaller parties to take power away from the Phak Thai Rak Thai.

Well it shows weakness certainly. Unless Thaksin and his party think that they can actually win more seats through these new elections it is mostly to try and alleviate discontent concerning his term as Prime Minister.

The real wild card in this whole situation is the King since he has the ultimate power to oust Sinawatra and the Phak Thai Rak Thai if he wants to but he has remained quiet on the situation and besides supporting the call for new elections he is probably going to not choose sides in this matter.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Elections set for April 2.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

bad news, the opposition is considering a boycott: http://bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=81766

Although that's possibly good news. The closer Thaksin gets to an out and out dictator, the higher a possibility of a military coup, or the King sacking him in some way.

[2952-0-0]

Preliminary results from Bangkok (the liberal stronghold) show "NOTA" garnering more votes than Thai Rak Thai.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040200426.html

[minionofmidas]

Elsewhere people are protesting for free elections. In Thailand they're protesting against them.

Of course, the point - the point Italians are grappling with too - is that free elections aren't enough. You need safeguards against corrupt businessmen opening up a politics sideline. (That his administration's behavior  has helped Thaksin's corporations' value is the main beef for the protesters, really.)

Thaksin has said he'd resign if his party polls under 50% or if turnout is under 50% - that of course in order to salvage some political capital from the spectacle.
But if NOTA is only just ahead in (most parts of)Bangkok, and turnout is down only slightly, expect him to win big. As he would have without the boycott.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Pressure against him will continue though.

Who else thinks Thaksin will be gone by the time opebo returns to Thailand?

[WMS]

Pressure against him will continue though.

Who else thinks Thaksin will be gone by the time opebo returns to Thailand?

If he wins the election...why would he resign? He might fall on corruption charges if those can be proved, but Thai Rak Thai ain't gonna fall on their swords just because their opponents want them to...

And didn't the king support the holding of elections and NOT Thaksin resigning?

[minionofmidas]

What the hell else was he supposed to do?

[WMS]

What the hell else was he supposed to do?

Didn't BRTD and opebo hold out hopes of the king forcing Thaksin to resign?

[ag]

Some observations.

1.  According to Washington Post, Thai Rak Thai candidates were unopposed in a majority of districts because of the boycotte.  So, losing was not on the agenda anyway.

2. To be elected a candidate needs, besides a simple plurality of votes cast, the support of, at least, 20% of the total votes eligible. Thus, if the turnout is under 20% even an unopposed candidate is not elected.

3. In many of the districts where Thai Rak Thai is unopposed, it seems, the turnout is under 20%, so elections would have to be repeated there.

4. By Thai law, the parliament cannot be constituted, nor the government formed unless all members are elected.

5. If the opposition manages to repeatedly hold the turnout in at least 1 district to under 20%, it seems, there is a real constitutional crisis in the offing.

[WMS]

Some observations.

1.  According to Washington Post, Thai Rak Thai candidates were unopposed in a majority of districts because of the boycotte.  So, losing was not on the agenda anyway.

2. To be elected a candidate needs, besides a simple plurality of votes cast, the support of, at least, 20% of the total votes eligible. Thus, if the turnout is under 20% even an unopposed candidate is not elected.

3. In many of the districts where Thai Rak Thai is unopposed, it seems, the turnout is under 20%, so elections would have to be repeated there.

4. By Thai law, the parliament cannot be constituted, nor the government formed unless all members are elected.

5. If the opposition manages to repeatedly hold the turnout in at least 1 district to under 20%, it seems, there is a real constitutional crisis in the offing.

Didn't the Ukraine have this problem in its first set or two of elections?

[ag]

Some observations.

1.  According to Washington Post, Thai Rak Thai candidates were unopposed in a majority of districts because of the boycotte.  So, losing was not on the agenda anyway.

2. To be elected a candidate needs, besides a simple plurality of votes cast, the support of, at least, 20% of the total votes eligible. Thus, if the turnout is under 20% even an unopposed candidate is not elected.

3. In many of the districts where Thai Rak Thai is unopposed, it seems, the turnout is under 20%, so elections would have to be repeated there.

4. By Thai law, the parliament cannot be constituted, nor the government formed unless all members are elected.

5. If the opposition manages to repeatedly hold the turnout in at least 1 district to under 20%, it seems, there is a real constitutional crisis in the offing.

Didn't the Ukraine have this problem in its first set or two of elections?

It was not uncommon in early post-Soviet elections - in Russia, as well as in the Ukraine - not to have all seats filled on the election day, even after the run-off (either because of the low turnout, or because of the large "non-of-the-above" vote). But this never really was a problem, since you only needed a simple majority of members elected for the parliament to be constituted. The Thai peculiarity seems to be that you cannot form the government unless ALL members are elected.

[WMS]

Some observations.

1.  According to Washington Post, Thai Rak Thai candidates were unopposed in a majority of districts because of the boycotte.  So, losing was not on the agenda anyway.

2. To be elected a candidate needs, besides a simple plurality of votes cast, the support of, at least, 20% of the total votes eligible. Thus, if the turnout is under 20% even an unopposed candidate is not elected.

3. In many of the districts where Thai Rak Thai is unopposed, it seems, the turnout is under 20%, so elections would have to be repeated there.

4. By Thai law, the parliament cannot be constituted, nor the government formed unless all members are elected.

5. If the opposition manages to repeatedly hold the turnout in at least 1 district to under 20%, it seems, there is a real constitutional crisis in the offing.

Didn't the Ukraine have this problem in its first set or two of elections?

It was not uncommon in early post-Soviet elections - in Russia, as well as in the Ukraine - not to have all seats filled on the election day, even after the run-off (either because of the low turnout, or because of the large "non-of-the-above" vote). But this never really was a problem, since you only needed a simple majority of members elected for the parliament to be constituted. The Thai peculiarity seems to be that you cannot form the government unless ALL members are elected.

Ah, thanks. And now the boycott strategy makes more sense...

[ag]

According to BBC Thai Rak Thai has won 57% of the vote and 349 out of 500 seats (down from 377 last time). In 278 constituencies (out of 400 - another 100 seats are allocated by PR) their candidate was the only one because of the boycotte, though.

But in 38 constituencies the leading (probably, the only) candidate got the support of less then 20% of the total number of eligible voters. Most of these are in the opposition strongholds. These have to be filled within 30 days for the parliament to be constituted. The electoral commission is promising 2 rounds of by-elections within this period.  I have a feeling, there will be another election called in May.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well Thaksin has now resigned after a meeting with the King. Looks like that did go through after all.

The King is still officially a constitutional monarch, so when Thaksin asked him to dissolve parliament and call new elections, it was just a formality to do so. But it has been known for quite some time that the King was largely opposed to Thaksin. In fact the slogans on this girl's shirt from an anti-Thaksin demonstration:



Are "Liberation the nation" and "We will fight for the King". Also the color yellow is the royal color and has basically been adopted as the official color of the opposition.

I suspect we might see another round of elections with full participation soon.

[WMS]

Hmm...will the opposition accept another electoral loss to Thai Rak Thai even if Thanksin isn't its leader?

[minionofmidas]

And suddenly it all made sense...including the resignation itself. Thanks, ag.

[Colin]

I believe I have heard that the opposition will continue the boycott and boycott the new elections, both the ones to fill vacant seats and the new election called by the Acting PM.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Constitutional Court just nullified the election results and has called for new ones: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/08/asia/web.0508thai.php

Looks like we'll finally get relatively fair elections now hopefully, and best of all, without Thaksin.

[minionofmidas]

The Constitutional Court just nullified the election results and has called for new ones: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/08/asia/web.0508thai.php

Looks like we'll finally get relatively fair elections now hopefully, and best of all, without Thaksin.

I don't think that an election without the man who would likely have won months ago even if the opposition had run can be described, with a straight face, as "fair".

[ag]

The Constitutional Court just nullified the election results and has called for new ones: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/08/asia/web.0508thai.php

Looks like we'll finally get relatively fair elections now hopefully, and best of all, without Thaksin.

I don't think that an election without the man who would likely have won months ago even if the opposition had run can be described, with a straight face, as "fair".

What is your definition of a "fair election"?

[minionofmidas]

The Constitutional Court just nullified the election results and has called for new ones: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/08/asia/web.0508thai.php

Looks like we'll finally get relatively fair elections now hopefully, and best of all, without Thaksin.

I don't think that an election without the man who would likely have won months ago even if the opposition had run can be described, with a straight face, as "fair".

What is your definition of a "fair election"?

Hmm... (note that the above post contains some hyperbole, and was mostly to dissuade others from gloating) the full bill not really attained anywhere in the world would be
unbiased media
roughly equal campaign money for all the wellpolling parties (obviously neither of these applied to Thaksin's wins either), donations well-regulated and extremely well-documented
if it's a parliamentary election: some sort of pr, and preferably an actual requirement for any resulting governing coalition to have received over 50% of valid votes
all the obvious stuff about nonpartisan election supervision, no ballot stuffing etc
no serious candidates disbarred from running (no matter whether that's due to a high deposit, a term limit, an age threshold, a birthplace requirement, or just a blatant piece of election rigging)
and certainly no thinly veiled coup threats to keep anyone from being a candidate.
Oh, and frequent elections. I tend to prefer a three year term myself - four or five years is actually awfully long, yet the US House's two years seem a wee bit short at least under the current campaign arrangements (they're basically campaigning nonstop).

[ag]

You clearly have a challenging definition . Unfortunately, full compliance would, in most cases, result in prolonged periods of no government whatsoever (frequent elections + PR + 50% vote requirement to establish a government - unless the country is as homogenous as a single rural Norwegian province, this is a recipe for a disaster). In fact, I would conjecture, that a fairly democratic country in your definition wouldn't have a government most of the time . Furthermore, who forms the government - when this actually happens - would, most of the time, be determined not by by the voter preferences but either by chance or by some unelected authority, such as an electoral commission (there are, in fact, very solid theoretical grounds why that's would be the case).  Actually, the old Athenian democracy by throughing lots would, probably, fit your bill the best.

[minionofmidas]

You clearly have a challenging definition . Unfortunately, full compliance would, in most cases, result in prolonged periods of no government whatsoever (frequent elections + PR + 50% vote requirement to establish a government - unless the country is as homogenous as a single rural Norwegian province, this is a recipe for a disaster). In fact, I would conjecture, that a fairly democratic country in your definition wouldn't have a government most of the time . Furthermore, who forms the government - when this actually happens - would, most of the time, be determined not by by the voter preferences but either by chance or by some unelected authority, such as an electoral commission (there are, in fact, very solid theoretical grounds why that's would be the case). 

The electoral commission? How so? (Oh and btw - inability to form a stable government is nothing a stable country can't handle. Hessen didn't have one for about two years in the early 80s. )