Thai election a cause for caution (2)

This is the last installment of a two-part analysis on the recent Thai general election by The Jakarta Post's Asia correspondent Harvey Stockwin.

HONG KONG (JP): The recent Thai general election didn't lead to the emergence of a strong nationwide party and, as a result, no party holds a dominant position on the political stage.

Besides this, no well-regarded national leader has emerged from this trip to the hustings. Chuan was thought to have performed creditably as Thailand's longest-serving elected Prime Minister but that did not translate into a major increase in Democrat strength.

Similarly, Banharn aroused so little national discontent with the previous government's record that Chart Thai was unable to make any inroads in the Democrat's southern base or in Bangkok, and only increased its overall strength by 15 seats.

In short, Thai democracy further confirmed its track record for producing factional leaders who try to rule the nation -- rather than fostering national leaders who also lead a Thailand- wide political party. Banharn illustrates this trend perfectly.

In his own bailiwick of Suphan Buri, in the Central region, he is unassailable. Banharn was the largest single vote-getter, securing 218,376 votes. In the two Suphan Buri constituencies, all six seats were won by Chart Thai, with a whopping 1,081,421 votes. Three of those six seats were won by Silpa-Archas with 577,626 votes.

Such hometown strength does not naturally translate into national esteem. Rather it tends to confirm Banharn's reputation for merely being a "walking ATM" (automatic teller machine, or cash-dispenser).

Fourth, it follows from all this that no clear sense of national purpose, no enduring sense of national policy direction and no substantive sense of national cohesion were fostered or inculcated at the polls. The rambunctious Thai media may have exaggerated the extent of vote-buying, but the fact remains that it was rampant.

Essentially the money was spent to secure voters' support for personal factions masquerading as political parties. Thai politicians lack the self-confidence or the scruples to ask for votes on the basis of policy or principle. So personal factions endure. They have to "earn" a return on the electoral "investment".

That said, what has been achieved during and since the election is noteworthy.

The campaign proceeded smoothly, with fewer violent incidents than usual. The turnout nationwide was 62.04 percent, almost the same as last time, although in Bangkok it sank to a mere 49.81 percent.

The official final result was produced by 6.30 a.m. the morning after polling closed -- a speed which ought to turn all Filipinos, with their month-long waits for results, green with envy.

After the 1992 election in Thailand there was a six-week hiatus while a coalition was formed. This time around, the outline of a the new six-party coalition quickly followed the results, becoming seven parties two days later.

Banharn has maneuvered shrewdly, perhaps because he fears Democrat mergers with smaller parties. He has promised to be decisive, which at least indicates that he recognizes Chuan's main failing.

Now that the election is over, the larger political parties are remembering the academics whom they have hired for policy ideas. It's a vague idea at the moment, but at least these advisers are putting "political reform" on the national agenda.

These and other positive signs are visible but some old and deeply worrying tendencies are manifest.

A government has not been formed as quickly as the coalition.

It speaks volumes about the weak leadership role of the Prime Minister in Thai democracy, and about the frictional basis of factional politics, that the seven parties have argued intensely over who gets what ministry. Each faction wanted its proper share of portfolios with every party getting one Deputy Prime Ministership.

As Prime Minister, Banharn will only chose the Chart Thai ministers. Regarding the majority of his Cabinet, those whom he does not chose, he can hardly sack.

At heart, two traditional Thai political patterns could be reasserting themselves.

Once again, the politicians are embarked upon endless games of musical chairs, with the risk being that Thai democrats will switch their parties, their loyalties and even their governments with irresponsible abandon.

Once again, amidst rampant vote-buying and blatant pursuit of the spoils of office, the specter of pervasive corruption haunts Thai politics. Is the country still enmeshed in the endless cycle of democratic periods whose perceived instability will lead to military coups, followed by authoritarian periods whose perceived instability will lead to renewed democratic takeovers?

Those who forget history, it is said, are fated to repeat it. Banharn should remember history, since he was a member of the Chart Thai "buffet government" -- everyone endlessly helped themselves -- which was "couped" out of existence by the military in 1991.

But as many Thais carelessly assume that the days of coups are now past, they could be exuding the complacency which will end this democratic phase in the endless Thai political cycle.