In Thailand, public outrage over the failure last week of Forward Movement Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat to turn into prime minister as a result of lack of support within the country’s Senate is popping into an unprecedented challenge to the legitimacy of the military-appointed body.
The 250-member upper house of parliament is seen as a key stronghold of the conservative establishment against Pita and his progressive party. In the vote that took place on July 13, senators showed a muted expression of rejection – 34 voted directly against Pita, 159 abstained, and 43 didn’t participate within the vote or didn’t appear on the session in any respect.
Move Forward was the surprise winner of the May elections, winning over 14 million votes. The staunch refusal to seat Pita, who faces a series of legal challenges, is seen by many Thais as a direct rejection of the desire of the people. This has led to a rise in street protests – including a gathering of 500 cars and motorcycles parading through the streets of Bangkok last week – and online campaigns to show senators for all manner of inappropriate behavior, from questionable financial dealings to extramarital affairs.
In the face of public challenges to the Senate, Move Forward pushed for a constitutional amendment to completely exclude senators from participating within the prime minister selection process. Political analysts expect such mobilizations to extend because the elected opposition battles conservative winds to form a brand new government, but in addition they consider such demonstrations are unlikely to vary minds within the military-backed Senate.
Demonstrations against institutions perceived as authoritarian are nothing latest in Thailand, but that is the primary time such protests are aimed directly on the unelected upper house, said Napon Jatusripitak, a visiting fellow on the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
“As far as I know, there have been no significant protests against the Senate as representative of the bureaucracy or the establishment,” he said. “I think this is a very new phenomenon and has only been brought to light because the Senate voted directly against the popular view.”
Fear of precisely this type of public backlash was likely what prompted most senators to abstain on July 13 slightly than vote against Pita, noted Terminak Chalermpalanupap, who can also be coordinator of the Thai studies program at ISEAS–Yusof Ishak.
“Some of them didn’t want to be seen openly opposing Pita because there are costs involved,” Termak said.
Many senators justified their decision to abstain from their personal belief that the Senate mustn’t interfere within the choice of the prime minister, said Ken Mathis Lohatepanont, a doctoral student on the University of Michigan within the US
“They argued that they were abstaining from voting because they didn’t want to participate within the choice of the prime minister, which is in keeping with calls for the Senate to ‘turn off the switch’ and refrain from using this power,” he said. “Of course, this doesn’t make life easier for Pita because the constitution requires 375 votes in favor; abstaining from voting does not help Pita cross the line.”
In response to such statements by senators, the Forward Movement Party gave legislators the chance to place this rhetoric into practice. On July 14, only a day after failing in its first try and turn into prime minister, the party presented a draft constitutional amendment removing Art. 272 – a provision authorizing the Senate to take part in the strategy of electing the Prime Minister.
In the general public sphere, attempts by senators to isolate themselves from criticism have to date proven ineffective. For many of the Thai public, there appears to be no difference between abstaining or abstaining from voting and explicitly rejecting Pita’s candidacy for the prime minister’s position.
Online protesters began digging into the senators’ histories, attempting to uncover past actions perceived as immoral and even criminal with a view to publicly shame them. They also posted the hashtag #ธุรกิจสว on Twitter, or “the senator’s case,” to call for a boycott of corporations related to senators and their families. Within hours of the July 13 vote, the campaign was already the preferred hashtag on Thai Twitter.
Some senators tried to counter the net pressure campaign, calling it a “witch hunt” and threatening online critics with defamation charges. But these attempts are unlikely to discourage online criticism, said James Buchanan, an independent analyst of Thai politics.
“[Once] these items goes viral on Twitter and Facebook,” he said, “as much as they may try, it won’t do anything to stop the tide of criticism.”
While the Senate could also be powerless to stem the wave of public outrage its votes have unleashed, Napon said Thai public opinion and Move Forward are likely equally powerless to vary the consequence within the upper house.
“I do not think the protests will play a big role in shaping the Senate’s vote, as they demonstrated their position already on July 13,” he said.
This impotence of public pressure to influence the Senate’s voting behavior was fully demonstrated within the July 19 vote to find out whether Pita could be allowed to run multiple times as a candidate for prime minister, which he lost by a fair greater margin than his original bid for the position. premiere .
An attempt by the Ruch Naprzód Party to vary Art. 272 Constitution has equally little probability of success without the support of other parties in its threatened coalition, Termak noted.
“Pheu Thai already said it doesn’t serve [the amendment]and that that is the Move Forward party’s own initiative, undertaken without consultation inside the eight-party coalition,” he said, noting that the Move Forward coalition partners would probably abstain from voting if the amendment entered the vote.
The probabilities that Move Forward will find enough votes within the Senate for a constitutional amendment are also low, despite the stated positions and voting records of many senators on the problem.
“In the past, [during] the primary try and change this structure, this particular provision, the concept was supported by 56 senators [of revoking Section 272]”Termak said, although he acknowledged that it was unlikely that these senators would vote the identical way now.
Ultimately, it’s the pressure on senators from other senators, slightly than public opinion or elected members of the Legislature, that will play a more significant role in determining how senators vote in the long run, he added.
“[There’s] a number of pressure from peers and senators,” said Termak. “These senators have their own very close connections and rely on each other for patronage, and that is a very valuable patronage connection [they] you have to try to keep it.”
