Abhisit on law and elections
Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva keeps talking about the “rule of law” as a principle underpinning his government’s actions. His most recent iteration of this was when speaking to a meeting arranged by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand (The Nation, 15 January 2010).
Abhisit is reported as saying this: “that he would not sacrifice the rule of law ‘just to please my political opponents or for what some people consider political reconciliation’. If this was done, there would be ‘never-ending chaos and conflict’, he added, referring to the ongoing political conflict.”
PPT finds this kind a statement somewhat confused. We think that Abhisit really means rule by law, where the law is used by an incumbent government in order to maintain its position and power. After all, the red shirt scream about double standards really does carry considerable meaning if one looks at, say, the way the Internal Security Act has been used.
Interestingly, when asked “why he did not abolish the Internal Security Act as he was opposed to it before he became government head, Abhisit responded that it was up to Parliament to make decisions on laws and that he was open to any amendments.” Note the word “amendment”; in fact, the ISA has been particularly useful tool for the government in opposing red shirts.
This is a clear example of rule by law rather than the rule of law.
Abhisit also uses the law resort when he talks of elections. He says that “three criteria had to be met: economic recovery; all parties being satisfied with the election rules; and all sides proving that they are ready to contest in a free and fair election.” He adds that “early elections would not be held if there were any signs of violence.”
With certain privy councilors opposed to an election that the Democrat Party coalition might lose, and with conditions that need considerable time to achieve (economic recovery), elections could be a long way of indeed. Indeed, the statement that an election can only be held on the prime minister’s definition of “free and fair” (meaning that the Democrat Party and its partners can campaign without fear of opposition disruption), an excuse is made for putting off elections for several years.
In fact, except for some highly unusual event, the plan has always been to put off an election until the military, palace and the Democrat Party are absolutely sure they can win. The huge failure in 2007 has taught these groups that the red shirts will have to be defeated before an election.
Comments are closed.