Which election method will give Thailand a stronger parliament filled with MPs from political parties who actually serve the public? That is the question that our lawmakers have time and time again tried to answer -- and this time, they came up with two possible solutions, which they dubbed the 100-rule and the 500-rule.
The rule will determine the number of list-MP seats which will be up for grabs in the next poll. As such, which one is better?
The 100-rule is preferred by bigger, more established parties, such as Pheu Thai, Palang Pracharath (PPRP) and the Democrats. If used in the next election, these parties -- with their resources and networks -- have more chance of controlling the lower House.
The goal of the 500-rule, meanwhile, is to create a more diverse political ecosystem. Under this formula, the leading candidate in a constituency won't be the only one who receives a House seat, as the votes cast will also be used to determine who the first and second runner-ups are. As such, small- and medium-sized parties are more likely to get a bigger share of the House seats.
The debate over which rule to use has split lawmakers since the start of the week. In fact, on Wednesday evening MPs got into a heated debate as the provisions relating to the calculation of list MPs in the draft of the organic law on elections were read out.
At 10pm that evening, it was reported, Mongkolkit Suksintharanon, list MP and leader of the Thai Civilised Party challenged Senate Speaker Pornpetch Wichitcholchai to quit his post.
Coalition parties, such as the PPRP and Democrats, as well as major opposition parties such as Pheu Thai, were known to have thrown their support behind the 100-rule.
But then earlier in the week, several Democrat MPs changed their minds and decided to back the 500-rule with small- and medium-sized parties. Several MPs from the PPRP also surprisingly made the switch.
As a result, Pheu Thai quickly accused the PPRP of undermining its efforts to win House seats.
While pundits have said the move was just meant to court small- and medium-sized parties ahead of the censure debate that will take place this month, it shows how debates around the topic were largely centred on political gains, with little to no focus on ideology.
While MPs and senators ultimately voted in favour of the 500-rule, lawmakers who supported the other methodology, including several from Pheu Thai's ranks and Paiboon Nititawan, deputy leader of the PPRP, have vowed to ask the Constitutional Court to make a final decision on the matter.
If they decide to go ahead with their plan, the Constitutional Court will need three months to deliberate the issue. During this time, the matter will degenerate into further conflicts as political parties press for the rule which gives them the most advantage.
The deliberations on Wednesday were not the democratic process that people had hoped for. Instead, they were an ugly display of filibustering by dissatisfied political parties to advance their political interests.
In reality, most voters probably won't fully understand the nation's election laws. But they need to know that the politicians they voted for will work honestly for the public interest. What Wednesday's debate has shown instead is that regardless of which rule gets chosen, it won't do our democracy any good if our MPs continue to behave they way they did.
