The attempt to adopt a mixed-member proportional election system ...

11
At this point, therefore, the number of models for the design of Thailand’s future electoral
system had increased to three. In the same meeting, Pisit Leeahtam 18 summarized
this situation by pointing out that, at the beginning, the krop (second subcommittee)
had wanted only 400 MPs, without party lists. He pointed out that there
had been little discussion in the sub-committee, simply because the decision to drop
the party list had been made at the very beginning of the proceedings already. However,
in their six-day retreat in a Cha-am hotel, about ten CDC members had insisted on
keeping the party list MPs, which had led to the drafting of article 90/1 (an alternative
version of the original article that excluded party-list MPs, presumably comprising
400 constituency MPs and 80 regional party list MPs). Finally, Krirkkiat had proposed
a proportional system modeled after that of Germany (CDC 20:75).
Creating confusion about “proportionality” at the retreat in Bang Saen
The next step in this struggle about Thailand’s next electoral system came in a series
of six meetings (nos. 22 to 27) held between April 6 and 11, 2007, at a hotel in the
seaside resort town of Bang Saen, Chonburi province, in order finally to decide on the
content of the hearing-version of the constitution. The decisive 26th meeting on April
10 started with Krirkkiat right away again describing the proportional system. Others,
like Jaran, Vicha Mahakhun, 19 Chuchai Suphawong, 20 and Komsan Pokhong 21 also
spoke in favor of this approach, though they differed in some detail. On the other
hand, Nakharin Mektrairat, 22 Phairote Phromsan, 23 and Woothisarn Tanjai 24 were critical
of this proposed new system. All of these CDC members could be categorized as
belonging to the administrative and academic stratum of the aphichon. However, this
did not mean that they always shared the same opinion. Thus, in the context of debating
the election system, one could distinguish between “reformers” and “conservatives”
within the same socio-political stratum. 25 Their relationship was not always
without tension. The “reformers” insinuated that the “conservatives,” in rejecting the
adoption of a mixed-member proportional system, somehow ignored the best interests
of the country. The “conservatives,” on the other hand, accused the “reformers” that
they did not properly understand Thai political culture and structures, and had therefore
proposed an election system that was “inappropriate” for the country. In a later
meeting (No. 35 of June 1, 2007), Pisit Leeahtam apparently felt the need to take up
this issue saying that he had detected a problem of fairness regarding the criticism