The National Anti-Corruption Commission's (NACC) ruling on Monday that found Nat Laosisawakul, former secretary-general of the Election Commission (EC), negligent over the late arrival of 1,542 advance votes from Thai citizens in New Zealand before the March 24, 2019 election, has shone a light on the performance of the EC and its effect on the health of democracy in Thailand.
In this case, Mr Nat is likely to face a charge of violating Section 157 of the Criminal Code for dereliction of duty and could face a jail term of one to ten years, and/or have to pay a fine of between 20,000-200,000 baht.
His crime is that he ignored picking up diplomatic mailbags containing 1,542 advance ballots from Thai citizens in New Zealand. Despite being warned about the risk of failing to meet the deadline, Mr Nat did not have the advance-vote ballots collected and counted. His negligence not only cost taxpayers money, it also undermined the ailing health of Thai democracy and harmed the reputation of the agency. It is not the first time the agency and its commissioners have been in hot water. In the past, former EC commissioners have been jailed for their wayward election preparations.
With the next election looming, the agency is facing a raft of criticism. The latest issue concerns the controversial method the EC is applying to draw electoral constituency boundaries. The electoral map will determine the number of MPs in each constituency, and define how each political party will prepare its campaign and file candidates.
The EC said it has followed the latest organic law on elections. This requires the EC to add non-eligible voters, including those who are younger than 18, as well as registered foreign residents and migrant workers in drawing electoral constituencies. This method has been used before to draw up electoral constituencies, based on the rationale that the total population -- rather than just the number of eligible voters -- reflects the true magnitude of the economic, social activities and problems that require the aid of MPs to take care of.
Some MPs have accused the EC's model of affecting their electoral campaigns, with a few even warning that political parties may file lawsuits and have the election result disqualified if the EC fails to clear the air. Critics such as Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam, and even firebrand whistleblower Srisuwan Janya, have warned this could delay the election.
The agency yesterday appealed to the Constitutional Court to request its judges have the final say. That may free the EC from legal threats, but it doesn't help promote democracy or transparency. Instead, it needs to clear the air. The public need to know whether the court ruling would affect the election timetable, while politicians need to be told whether the EC's method will affect their rights and election campaigns. Above all, there must be more clarity on why the EC is including non-voters as it draws up the electoral constituencies.
However, the EC remains aloof. Yet without clear communication, rumours and distrust will fill the void.
It is about time the EC behaves more like it is part of a real democratic system. For years, it has behaved like a government department that only handles administrative tasks like drawing electoral maps, printing ballots, running poll booths and counting voters. But it is actually handling the process of voting, which lies at the heart of the democratic system. Its task is to make people trust in democratic elections, which is why transparency and open communication should be at the top of its agenda.
