Rangsiman Rome, a key student activist leader, has submitted his answers to Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha’s notorious four questions at the Ministry of Defence. Rome explained that he wanted to show the junta leader that there are people who disagree with him.
In an interview with Prachatai, Rome expressed concern that the majority of people formally submitting feedback to Prayut’s questions are likely to agree with the junta’s approach to governance. This is because those who disagree may not dare to speak out, especially since submitting feedback involves showing one’s ID card and personal details.
But it was these concerns themselves that prompted Rome to prove to Prayut that there are citizens ready to protest against his rule.
Rome, while believing that the questions were leading in nature, found the junta leader’s obsession with ‘good governance’ self-contradictory.
Rome’s responses:
Will the next election lead to ‘good governance’?
Good governance does not emerge from good people entering government in any old way, but from a system designed to promote governments that fulfil their duties. The current regime has amended Thailand’s constitution itself. If Prayut was truly confident in his constitution, he would never have asked this question in the first place.
In any case, the constitution grants senators, the courts and ‘independent’ organisations significant powers to control the next government. This begs the question, will there be measures to ensure ‘good governance’ from these institutions?
If elections do not lead to ‘good governance’, what should be done?
As I just said, good governance emerges from a good constitution. If the next government (or other relevant organisations) lacks good governance, it will show that the constitution itself has problems.
Moreover, there’s no point in the government having ‘good governance’, if it is just overpowered by senators, the courts and ‘independent’ organisations. As such, the constitution must be amended to grant the government authority that befits the representatives of the people.
Is it right to focus only on elections, at the expense of the country’s future and other issues?
Elections and national reform can take place hand in hand. It’s politicians themselves who put forward strategies and reforms, by passing various policies based upon campaigning amongst the people. A government elected by the people is naturally responsible for the policies it has proposed.
A coup to seize power from the people, on the other hand, is never right, even if there are strategies and reform involved — because they would be strategies and reforms imposed on an entire country by just one group.
Should politicians who engage in inappropriate behaviour be allowed to run in elections again?
In a democratic system, anyone possessing a background or characteristics banned in the constitution of course cannot participate in elections. Similarly, anyone who engages in inappropriate behaviour while in office may be subject to punishment.
A dictatorial government, on the other hand, allows people who engage in inappropriate behaviour to wield power without consent. This includes dictatorial rulers who do not have to be accountable for their actions thanks to political amnesties — such as the person who asked these questions himself.