As the embattled Election Commission (EC) prepares to announce its endorsement of at least 95% of the general election results, roughly equivalent to 475 out of the 500 MP seats up for grabs, many Thais can only hope the poll agency will honour the spirit and intent of the country's election laws and allow candidates who are qualified to serve as MPs to sit in parliament -- and not the other way around.
Previously, the agency unofficially announced the winners, but tomorrow, the EC will officially endorse the victors of the March 24 poll in 350 constituencies.
Any changes to the winners' line-up will pretty much depend on how the EC reacts to the petitions it received, which asked it to disqualify a number of candidates.
All eyes will remain on the EC at least until Wednesday, when the poll agency is slated to endorse another batch of lawmakers -- the party-list MPs.
The matter has stirred a great deal of controversy, given the fact the EC has hinted that it will opt for a seat distribution formula that critics say undermines the spirit of the election.
Section 91 of the constitution and Section 128 of the election law clearly outline the way to set the minimum threshold of popular votes that a party should have for its candidate to earn a seat under the party-list system. After the polls, the threshold should be set at 70,000 votes per seat, based on the law. Under this rule, the "anti-military" camp would secure a narrow victory.
However, the EC recently hinted that it might opt for another formula that would allow 11 smaller political parties to gain seats under the party-list system, even if they failed to garner enough votes to win one seat. These small parties just happen to be parties which support the pro-junta political camp.
If the EC opts for this formula, the so-called "pro-democracy" bloc will lose some seats -- a loss that would result in the pro-junta camp gaining more votes than its rival, and consequently, the right to form a government.
Moreover, the poll agency's handling of complaints made against certain candidates of anti-junta parties has raised questions about its impartiality.
The EC has disqualified a number of candidates based on a verbatim reading of the law without taking into account the spirit of the regulation as well as the facts of the cases.
For example, a Pheu Thai candidate was recently disqualified over allegations of vote buying after he donated 2,000 baht to a monk at a merit-making ceremony.
Given the fact that monks are not allowed to vote, could the candidate's action be construed as vote buying?
The EC's claims that the Future Forward Party leader, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, failed to transfer his shares in a media company prior to contesting the polls has also raised suspicions the allegation is politically motivated, given the weak evidence against him.
Soon, more politicians will file similar complaints against their rivals to disqualify them, and the EC has to make decisions based on sound judgement and the rule of law.
Many Thais have expressed their disappointment with the EC, as it seems to be constantly giving the edge to the pro-junta camp.
The EC has to respect the spirit of the law and maintain its integrity in deciding on the party-list distribution method and in its handling of poll-related complaints. Otherwise, Thailand's transition towards democratic rule risks being seen as a farce.
