In another controversial ruling, the Constitutional Court of Thailand has disqualified the Pheu Thai party from politics for ‘not using one’s best efforts to win’ and ‘conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport of politics’.
It is not known where these rules appear in the body of Thai law and some observers suspect that the Court was probably applying the rules of the Badminton World Federation. Under these rules, 4 women’s doubles teams were eliminated from the Olympics badminton competition after it appeared they were deliberately trying to lose games so as to ensure a favourable draw in later matches.
In a commentary on their ruling, the Court explained that the essence of parliamentary democracy was a ‘vigorous and robust competition’ between political parties. ‘If one party refuses to contend properly,’ a Court spokesperson said, ‘it betrays the entire system.’
When asked how the Pheu Thai party was guilty of not trying, the Court pointed to the party’s reaction to the Court’s own ruling on the bill to amend the constitution. While the Court had absolved the government of trying to overthrow the democratic system with the King as head of state, it had ‘warned’ the government not to proceed with any constitutional amendment without a prior referendum.
Many legal experts believe that the Court was overstepping its powers with this ‘warning’, and that the government would be within its rights to ignore it and proceed directly with the third reading of their bill. However, the government took a cautious line, putting the bill on hold while waiting for the Court’s written ruling so that they could then ask the Council of State to make a judgment on the best way to proceed.
‘This is a very weak response,’ said the Court spokesperson, ‘and gives the Court no opportunity to take further measures against the government. We had expected them to ignore our ruling, which would have allowed us to charge them with contempt of court and then ban them all from politics for 5 years.
‘Fortunately, one of the Constitutional Court judges is a bit of a badminton fan and saw what went on at the London Olympics. We then thought up this way of penalizing the government.’
The Court’s ruling makes a telling comparison with the behaviour of the opposition Democrat Party. ‘The Democrat Party has been most assiduous in its criticisms of the government, as befits an opposition party’ reads part of the ruling. ‘Not only have they been exemplary in attacking every last thing the government has done, they have also attacked the government for a great many things that they have not done, but which would have been worthy of censure if they had been done. This is the proper way for partisan politics to be conducted.’
The Court further noted that the government’s relative passivity in the face of provocations by recent Court decisions had deprived spectators of their constitutional right to enjoyment.
‘People pay good money to buy newspapers,’ said the Court spokesperson, ‘and they then read that the government is acting in a moderate and restrained manner. This is no fun and not what they have the right to expect. Thai politicians’ past behaviour has led observers to look forward to mud-slinging, sensational misrepresentation and baseless allegations against people identified only by the initial letter of their name.’
Newspapers have not only had no salacious political wrangles to report, but their columnists have been limited to rewriting the latest pronouncement from Democrat Party headquarters.
‘This causes mental anguish to their pundits, has a negative effect on their circulation figures and ultimately affects national economic growth prospects,’ said the Court spokesperson, noting that the current Court ruling does not preclude the possibility of civil court actions by third parties who feel they have been injured by the government’s irresponsible attempts to act responsibly.
The Court insists that it made its ruling only after a thorough investigation of the facts. ‘It is well-known that government MPs include a number of well-known firebrands who could normally be expected to shoot their mouths off at the slightest provocation. It’s not a question of the government not having the capacity or competence to make a proper political fight of it,’ said the Court spokesperson. ‘They could if they wanted to; so it’s obviously a deliberate decision to pull their punches and avoid confrontation.’
The Pheu Thai government was reportedly reacting to the latest ruling with caution. Some within the party were advocating an appeal against the ruling. But others pointed out that any appeal would be heard by the same judges who made the ruling so it might be best just to go along with it.
