Danger Of Elected Provincial Thai Governors

[webfact]

Danger of Elected Provincial Governors

The political conflict among Thais could escalated into a civil war which would be fought by the supporters of fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and a government led by the Democrat Party. The conflict is now approaching that critical point. At the moment, the red shirt movement, who's shared the same ideology with a certain major political party, has been trying to topple the current government as directed by a mastermind, who is aiming to exonerate himself from the crimes that he committed while he was in power.

Many of the pro-red shirt scholars from Chulalongkorn University have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected, similar to the gubernatorial electoral system practiced in Bangkok Metropolitan and Pattaya.

These scholars believe that in the current provincial administrative system, the governors have became subservient to politicians, in which the governorship can now be bought and sold. With this point, they argue that the people in each province should be able to decide for themselves who should be their governor as has been done in many countries.

The system of the elected governorship is usually practiced in a “presidential” administrative system seen in the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, Russian Federation, India, Swiss Confederation, France Republic and others.

However, Thailand is a “unitary state” and a “kingdom”, where we have a monarch who acts as the head of the state. Aside from Thailand, countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Belgium and others practice this system.

It has been speculated that the Interior Ministry is planning to dissolve all of the provincial local administrative organizations and replaced them with elected governors. This is worrisome as the idea could lead Thailand to more conflicts and ultimately, its downfall since currently, the country is deeply divided.

The proposal to solve violence in the south by having voters elect their own governors would be like encouraging the separatist movements to form a sovereign Pattani State, which has been demanded for more than fifty years.

If voters in the three southernmost provinces could elect their own governors, many more political groups in other provinces will also demand the same thing. Eventually, this could disintegrate the Kingdom of Thailand. The issue is a dangerous one and could lead Thailand into the most serious conflict in the nation's history.

Taken from Editorial Section, Naewna Newspaper, Page 3, October 13, 2010

Translated and Rewritten by Kongkrai Maksrivorawan

Please note that the views expressed in our "Analysis" segment are translated from local newspaper articles and do not reflect the views of the Thai-ASEAN News Network.

-- Tan Network 2010-10-14

[Just1Voice]

While I agree that there is some validity to what you say, on the other side of that coin, allowing the people to elect their own governors would give them, the people, a greater sense of having a say-so in their government, instead of being forced to accept whatever the “powers that be” in BKK decide.

It’s common knowledge that “Governorships”, like just about everything else in Thailand, are bought and sold to the highest bidder, or given out as a “reward” for past kowtowing or political “favors”.

I think your idea that allowing this would lead to civil strife, perhaps even civil war, is a bit over the top, as the Provincial Governors would still be answerable to Parliament and the Prime Minister.

I say let them vote, let the people decide who their governors should be, and take it out of the hands of BKK who, in reality, don’t have a clue as to what really goes on in the provinces outside of Bangkok.

[chantorn]

" have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected......."

No way. Selection is best. If election is needed, maybe 30% elected, and 70% remains selected. The problem with election is that it allows for voting selling/buying. No such selling/buying in the selection method.

[Just1Voice]

" have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected......."

No way. Selection is best. If election is needed, maybe 30% elected, and 70% remains selected. The problem with election is that it allows for voting selling/buying. No such selling/buying in the selection method.

Morally, what's the difference between "vote buying" by politicians, and "position buying" by the same politicians? One "buys votes" to get elected, the other "buys the position". Either way, it's corruption, so it just depends on which form of it you want.

But by allowing the people to vote, they at least feel as if they have a say-so in their government.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Just1Voice

[craigt3365]

" have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected......."

No way. Selection is best. If election is needed, maybe 30% elected, and 70% remains selected. The problem with election is that it allows for voting selling/buying. No such selling/buying in the selection method.

Morally, what's the difference between "vote buying" by politicians, and "position buying" by the same politicians? One "buys votes" to get elected, the other "buys the position". Either way, it's corruption, so it just depends on which form of it you want.

But by allowing the people to vote, they at least feel as if they have a say-so in their government.

It's a big problem in the US now. I guess they are bypassing election laws somehow and any group can fund campaign advertising. Even if the candidate does not approve it. And the amount of money now being spent is 3 or 4 times what it was 10 years ago...to ridiculous levels. So voters who see an ad on TV can't really be sure who authored it. Crazy...but it sure beats having a governor given a position...or being allowed to buy it. Neither way is perfect, but elections at least give the people the feeling they had something to do with it...like all the American's who voted for Obama and are now regretting it!

[animatic]

" have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected......."

No way. Selection is best. If election is needed, maybe 30% elected, and 70% remains selected. The problem with election is that it allows for voting selling/buying. No such selling/buying in the selection method.

Taking the piss again I see.

One way or another the govs will be beholden to powers

beyond their abilities to push back.

Maybe here it's better to have them all on one team,

rather than scattered across a dozen incoherent party platforms

or controlled solely by the local power brokers.

Edited October 14, 2010 by animatic

[DiamondKing]

Either way its time to let the THAI people VOTE and let them choose who leads them instead of the fiasco that has been going on since the thaksin coup

DK

Edited October 14, 2010 by DiamondKing

[rubl]

" have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected......."

No way. Selection is best. If election is needed, maybe 30% elected, and 70% remains selected. The problem with election is that it allows for voting selling/buying. No such selling/buying in the selection method.

Morally, what's the difference between "vote buying" by politicians, and "position buying" by the same politicians? One "buys votes" to get elected, the other "buys the position". Either way, it's corruption, so it just depends on which form of it you want.

But by allowing the people to vote, they at least feel as if they have a say-so in their government.

At least being scr@wed by an elected governor who bought his way through elections, the people can't complain the central government to be responsable. Big improvement or peoples loss ?

Better work on a transparent selection process for governors instead of just 'she's a good friend of my daughter' or some such nonsense.

[animatic]

Either way its time to let the THAI people VOTE and let them choose who leads them instead of the fiasco that has been going on since the thaksin coup

DK

As opposed to the fiasco that was going on before the Thaksin removal

from his acting PM job he had quit and then decided he wanted again,

but was never formally reinstated into?

[afarang]

Australia is , regrettably ,still subject to a monarchical system.However, EVERY level of Govt.-we have 3-(national,state, local) is elected. There are no appointees. Absolutely, Governors should be elected in Thailand.

[DiamondKing]

Either way its time to let the THAI people VOTE and let them choose who leads them instead of the fiasco that has been going on since the thaksin coup

DK

As opposed to the fiasco that was going on before the Thaksin removal

from his acting PM job he had quit and then decided he wanted again,

but was never formally reinstated into?

Ok lets just call it a dictatorship and be done with it

How long can it continue like it is without more death and bloodshed

The people want to vote

I dont understand why you guys dont want them to be allowed to ???

maybe because you wont like the result ???

Just asking

DK

[DiamondKing]

Australia is , regrettably ,still subject to a monarchical system.However, EVERY level of Govt.-we have 3-(national,state, local) is elected. There are no appointees. Absolutely, Governors should be elected in Thailand.

You are the minority in your views of the monarchy in Australia the majority of Australians respect and love the queen and wish her to continue to be the head of state although I do believe with your current leader she will be gunning to drop the Monarchy once Queen Elizabeth passes but until then she is just gonna have to live with it.

DK

[rubl]

Either way its time to let the THAI people VOTE and let them choose who leads them instead of the fiasco that has been going on since the thaksin coup

DK

As opposed to the fiasco that was going on before the Thaksin removal

from his acting PM job he had quit and then decided he wanted again,

but was never formally reinstated into?

Ok lets just call it a dictatorship and be done with it

How long can it continue like it is without more death and bloodshed

The people want to vote

I dont understand why you guys dont want them to be allowed to ???

maybe because you wont like the result ???

Just asking

DK

When PM Abhisit offered elections in November, some UDD leaders said 'now we only have to make sure we mobilize forces and win the elections and get k. Thaksin back'. Interesting statement for a pro-democracy group, wouldn't you say ?

The current government has come into place similar to many governments here before. Haggling by elected MP's, hardly a dictatorship. K. Thaksin even won a defamation court case recently, against k. Sondhi of all people!

[whybother]

Australia is , regrettably ,still subject to a monarchical system.However, EVERY level of Govt.-we have 3-(national,state, local) is elected. There are no appointees. Absolutely, Governors should be elected in Thailand.

You are the minority in your views of the monarchy in Australia the majority of Australians respect and love the queen and wish her to continue to be the head of state although I do believe with your current leader she will be gunning to drop the Monarchy once Queen Elizabeth passes but until then she is just gonna have to live with it.

DK

Actually, the majority of Australians want a republic. They just can't decide what sort of republic, so they vote against it.

[afarang]

Australia is , regrettably ,still subject to a monarchical system.However, EVERY level of Govt.-we have 3-(national,state, local) is elected. There are no appointees. Absolutely, Governors should be elected in Thailand.

You are the minority in your views of the monarchy in Australia the majority of Australians respect and love the queen and wish her to continue to be the head of state although I do believe with your current leader she will be gunning to drop the Monarchy once Queen Elizabeth passes but until then she is just gonna have to live with it.

DK

Not really ,in the minority,I agree ,at the moment it is a close run thing.When we had the last referendum, little johnny howard, worded it such a way , it could NOT pass.You are right ,nothing will happen while old lizzie survives. I would dispute that they"love" and "respect" liz. More, they accept. the situation as of now. Prepare for change, though.

[whybother]

Either way its time to let the THAI people VOTE and let them choose who leads them instead of the fiasco that has been going on since the thaksin coup

DK

As opposed to the fiasco that was going on before the Thaksin removal

from his acting PM job he had quit and then decided he wanted again,

but was never formally reinstated into?

Ok lets just call it a dictatorship and be done with it

How long can it continue like it is without more death and bloodshed

The people want to vote

I dont understand why you guys dont want them to be allowed to ???

maybe because you wont like the result ???

Just asking

DK

Governments don't call elections just because a few people want to vote. Governments call elections when they are required to by law, or when it suits them (whichever comes first).

[Hawaiian]

If Thailand ever wants a really democratic form of government they need to start somewhere. This is a good start. Of course there will be vote buying. That's the Thai way. And it will continue until the younger generation decides that it is no longer acceptable. This has happened to Japan to some extent. Democracy does not happen overnight. It usually is an evolutionary process.

[OzMick]

Australia is , regrettably ,still subject to a monarchical system.However, EVERY level of Govt.-we have 3-(national,state, local) is elected. There are no appointees. Absolutely, Governors should be elected in Thailand.

True, except that governors of Aus states are appointed representatives of the queen of Australia. When we no longer have a queen, IMHO Aus will become a republic, but the position of governor may be maintained. Occasionally they do fulfill a useful purpose, like when the Qld govt refused Joh B-P a dissolution and he retired, at least 10 years too late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governors_of_the_Australian_states

[OzMick]

Australia is , regrettably ,still subject to a monarchical system.However, EVERY level of Govt.-we have 3-(national,state, local) is elected. There are no appointees. Absolutely, Governors should be elected in Thailand.

You are the minority in your views of the monarchy in Australia the majority of Australians respect and love the queen and wish her to continue to be the head of state although I do believe with your current leader she will be gunning to drop the Monarchy once Queen Elizabeth passes but until then she is just gonna have to live with it.

DK

You seem to be remarkably ill-informed on at least 2 countries.

[Zolt]

Ok, this article has to be the stupidest piece of moronic BS I've read in a while.

Japan for example is a monarchy, and they do elect their local governors directly. In fact I can't recall out of hand any country where local administrators are designated from the capital (possibly China, not even sure).

Decentralization, and giving local communities more power for self determination has proven time and time again to be the best way to undercut hardline independentists, and get the common people to involve themselves in the country's politics. Nowadays all policies and local governors come from the Bangkok elite. I don't see how the Northeast and South could possibly be anything other than malcontent with the current system.

[chantorn]

" have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected......."

No way. Selection is best. If election is needed, maybe 30% elected, and 70% remains selected. The problem with election is that it allows for voting selling/buying. No such selling/buying in the selection method.

Taking the piss again I see.

One way or another the govs will be beholden to powers

beyond their abilities to push back.

Maybe here it's better to have them all on one team,

rather than scattered across a dozen incoherent party platforms

or controlled solely by the local power brokers.

"Maybe here it's better to have them all on one team".

Agree, as long as it is the Mark's team, and not Thaksin's team. Then it is OK.

[JusMe]

The initial editorial springs from a platform of ignorance.

"The system of the elected governorship is usually practiced in a “presidential” administrative system seen in the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, Russian Federation, India, Swiss Confederation, France Republic and others."

Not true. As others have pointed out, parliamentary systems too have elected local governing bodies.

"However, Thailand is a “unitary state” and a “kingdom”, where we have a monarch who acts as the head of the state. Aside from Thailand, countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Belgium and others practice this system."

Again, from a platform of ignorance. As others have pointed out, many other countries with elected local governing bodies also have a monarchical system - eg. Britain, Canada, Australia.

Even if in Canada and Australia, the ceremonial position of Governor-Genral or Lieutenant-Governor is appointed, it is by the recommendation of the elected government.

The closer any governing body is to the people being governed, the more responsive and responsible to those people it will be.

Greater decentralization in the South would resolve a lot of problems. Elected local government as opposed to appointed by the centre, would be responsible to the people in the South, who instead of sitting back and watching the insurgency, could then support their local government, i.e. themselves.

[Just1Voice]

" have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected......."

No way. Selection is best. If election is needed, maybe 30% elected, and 70% remains selected. The problem with election is that it allows for voting selling/buying. No such selling/buying in the selection method.

Taking the piss again I see.

One way or another the govs will be beholden to powers

beyond their abilities to push back.

Maybe here it's better to have them all on one team,

rather than scattered across a dozen incoherent party platforms

or controlled solely by the local power brokers.

"Maybe here it's better to have them all on one team".

Agree, as long as it is the Mark's team, and not Thaksin's team. Then it is OK.

Well, let's see, Transparency International now ranks Thailand as even MORE corrupt than when Dr. T was in charge, so it doesn't look like "Mark's Team" is doing too well. Mark might be ok, but I think he needs to find a better team to be on, or start replacing some of his with new and better players.

[afarang]

Australia is , regrettably ,still subject to a monarchical system.However, EVERY level of Govt.-we have 3-(national,state, local) is elected. There are no appointees. Absolutely, Governors should be elected in Thailand.

True, except that governors of Aus states are appointed representatives of the queen of Australia. When we no longer have a queen, IMHO Aus will become a republic, but the position of governor may be maintained. Occasionally they do fulfill a useful purpose, like when the Qld govt refused Joh B-P a dissolution and he retired, at least 10 years too late.

http://en.wikipedia....stralian_states

Governors basically sign into law what legislation the elected parliaments have passed. Pen pushers ,really. You are right about Qld.What about the drunken cur's disposal of Whitlam? At the behest of the squatter.

[dinooz]

The initial editorial springs from a platform of ignorance.

"The system of the elected governorship is usually practiced in a "presidential" administrative system seen in the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, Russian Federation, India, Swiss Confederation, France Republic and others."

Not true. As others have pointed out, parliamentary systems too have elected local governing bodies.

"However, Thailand is a "unitary state" and a "kingdom", where we have a monarch who acts as the head of the state. Aside from Thailand, countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Belgium and others practice this system."

Again, from a platform of ignorance. As others have pointed out, many other countries with elected local governing bodies also have a monarchical system - eg. Britain, Canada, Australia.

Even if in Canada and Australia, the ceremonial position of Governor-Genral or Lieutenant-Governor is appointed, it is by the recommendation of the elected government.

The closer any governing body is to the people being governed, the more responsive and responsible to those people it will be.

Greater decentralization in the South would resolve a lot of problems. Elected local government as opposed to appointed by the centre, would be responsible to the people in the South, who instead of sitting back and watching the insurgency, could then support their local government, i.e. themselves.

Is India a Monarchical Westminster system? just wondering with Commonwealth games etc

[Zolt]

" have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected......."

No way. Selection is best. If election is needed, maybe 30% elected, and 70% remains selected. The problem with election is that it allows for voting selling/buying. No such selling/buying in the selection method.

Now where have I heard that thing about 70% selection before.. hmmh? The problem is, there is one governor per province. You can't select just 70% of one person. Are you quite sure you've thought this through?

But obviously selection is the most efficient method. At least this way you only have to bribe one person, in the back rooms of some cozy private club, instead of several thousand right were everybody can see it. See, cheaper and safer this way!

[hammered]

Decentralization or not is one question, but the other side is if there are more and more pwoerful locally elected leaders then they must have more power as they are elected to presumably do soemthing rather than appointed as a representative. Then there must also be properly set up and running checks and balances at local level before instituting the elected governors. As the checks and balances at central level are still only functioning kind of in recent years and some want to get rid of them, it would seem now is not a time to extgend elections without checks and balances as having elected dictators is no more democracy than having unelected but less powerful figureheads.

Thailand wont see democracy grow until it can realsie the importance of valuing those elected and their platforms, protecting rights of minorities, protecting innocence until proven guilty and of course accepting that checks and balances are needed on even the lost powerful and elected. Right now the various players take extreme positions of total checks and no elected power or total elected power and no checks. Both of these are about power and not demcoracy and do no good for the people. What is needed is a move away from extremism by all.

[OzMick]

The initial editorial springs from a platform of ignorance.

"The system of the elected governorship is usually practiced in a "presidential" administrative system seen in the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, Russian Federation, India, Swiss Confederation, France Republic and others."

Not true. As others have pointed out, parliamentary systems too have elected local governing bodies.

"However, Thailand is a "unitary state" and a "kingdom", where we have a monarch who acts as the head of the state. Aside from Thailand, countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Belgium and others practice this system."

Again, from a platform of ignorance. As others have pointed out, many other countries with elected local governing bodies also have a monarchical system - eg. Britain, Canada, Australia.

Even if in Canada and Australia, the ceremonial position of Governor-Genral or Lieutenant-Governor is appointed, it is by the recommendation of the elected government.

The closer any governing body is to the people being governed, the more responsive and responsible to those people it will be.

Greater decentralization in the South would resolve a lot of problems. Elected local government as opposed to appointed by the centre, would be responsible to the people in the South, who instead of sitting back and watching the insurgency, could then support their local government, i.e. themselves.

Is India a Monarchical Westminster system? just wondering with Commonwealth games etc

India became a republic 60 years ago.

[Pattel]

It doesn't matter what system (Republic or Monarchy) as long as the system is corrupt the end result will be the same.

[ianh68]

Aside from Thailand, countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Belgium and others practice this system.

The UK may be a monarchy, but London sure as hel_l doesn't appoint local council leaders. How many posters resisting local elections would do the same in their own countries?

The election of provincial governers in Thailand is of crucial importance in the transition to full democracy. Because of the pivotal nature of this demand we can expect all manner of outpourings of resistance to it.