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

31
different experiences” (CDC 38:87). Since their proposal was little different from the
1997 election system, it also had little effect on the knowledge and understanding of
the people, and neither on the electoral administration, both of which was important,
because elections were to be held quite soon (after the constitution would have been
passed in a referendum) (ibid.:88). Pairote Promsan later in the meeting added that
introducing something new, such as the 200 to 200 or the 250 to 250 formulas, was
difficult to do and hard to explain. Moreover, this (MMP system) was really very new.
“The country is not a tool for us to experiment with new things, while the time is so
limited” (ibid: 119).
This remark came after Woothisarn’s counterpart, Krirkkiat Phipatseritham, had
delivered a spirited defense of the MMP system. At the beginning, he pointed out that
many elements of the MMP were similar to what Chermsak had said. Regarding the
past two elections (2001 and 2005),
the election system that we have used created governments with absolute
majorities in the House two times in a row. That we have had governments
with absolute majorities subjected our political system to a dictatorial
use of power. (CDC 38:88f.)
One might wonder whether Krirkkiat did not actually want to say that one single party,
Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai, had won absolute majorities “two times in a row”
(though in 2001, it did not, but needed to form a coalition government). Besides, governments
in a parliamentary system are normally thought to need absolute majorities
in the House for being stable. Such absolute majorities are not usually equated with a
“dictatorial use of power” (see also his quote on the next page) Krirkkiat added,
I think that the election system of 1997 was the reason that a government
with dictatorial powers occurred. If we use the proportional system, we
will get a government with a majority, but it would not dare using its
power to deviate [from the right path]. (CDC 38:90)
Given these statements, it is not surprising that Krirkkiat could not agree with Woothisarn’s
proposal to readopt the 1997 election system, though with small changes. He
anticipated that this system would again lead to the “parliamentary dictatorship” that
he and his group had been trying to exorcize from the Thai polity. “If we want to see
political change in our country in a way that is better and constructive …, then, I
think, the election system is an essential element that must be changed [towards