Thai politics: All signs point to state power centralisation

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
All signs point to state power centralisation
KRIS BHROMSUTHI

BANGKOK: -- Power decentralisation usually means that the government "outsources" its administrative power to locals, who can then elect administrative officials rather than be stuck with "appointed" bureaucrats.

After all, local resources and administrative challenges are usually best managed by local representatives.

However, the key problem with this is that local administrative bodies do not have any real authority and their duties often overlap with those of Interior Ministry units. Hence, understandably, there have been calls for further power decentralisation in different forms and models.

Yet, signs from those currently in control of the country - the military and bureaucrats - suggest that the trend of power decentralisation is about to be reversed.

The first sign came in the form of the National Council for Peace and Order's announcement No 85/2014, which ordered that local administrative polls be "postponed" due to "safety concerns".

Opponents would argue, however, that serious security measures are not really required for local elections, as they are not all held at the same time nationwide, and are thus easier to monitor and control.

The second sign came in the form of high participation by former governors or Interior Ministry officials, such as Pairoj Promsan, Wanlop Pringpong, Pongpayom Wasaputi, Sayumporn Limthai, in the National Reform Council (NRC)'s local administration reform subpanel.

Trakool Meechai, a prominent political scientist from Chulalongkorn University who has conducted extensive research in local administrative reform, has said: "Most public officials distrust people's decision-making abilities, or elected politicians chosen by the people."

Why? Because many genuinely believe that local administration elections are nothing but an excuse for local mafia and influential groups to enter politics only to pursue personal interests and material gains, while the community remains "too weak" to regulate against bad candidates.

Bureaucrats generally spend most of their lives working hard and undergoing training before they are appointed as district chiefs or provincial governors. Hence, it is understandable why they take so much pride in their "expertise" in governing people and why they dread the idea of "outsourcing" their power via such things as provincial gubernatorial elections.

"The junta is genuinely concerned about security, especially if too much power is transferred from the central government to the people," Trakool pointed out.

This is particularly true when the military junta considers politicians, especially local politicians, a threat to national security.

Politicians on both national and local fronts tend to work together, as banding together gives them and their political party more strength, and the stronger they become the less power the central authority has.

Therefore, the likelihood that the junta will push for power decentralisation - which in effect would empower the very people whom the junta perceives as "troublemakers" - is very slim.

It is likely that local administrative reform will come in the form of "centralised" power, not because of the junta's concerns about "security" and "weak community", but because they are in power and have a dominating presence in the National Legislative Assembly and the National Reform Council.

At this point, the junta needs to be clear about whether they want to centralise their power or decentralise it. However, the powers-that-be also need to remember that centralising power goes against the political stance of the People's Democratic Reform Committee, the Democrat Party and elected local administration officials.

The junta also needs to clarify whether it will abolish district and sub-district administrations, while empowering appointed provincial governors and district chiefs.

A debate on this is imperative so representatives from all sectors can take part and come up with a long-term, sustainable local administration reform model.

It may prove to be too late if the junta waits until the NRC proposes the idea to the charter drafting committee.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/All-signs-point-to-state-power-centralisation-30245904.html


-- The Nation 2014-10-21

[ramrod711]

Why? Because many genuinely believe that local administration elections are nothing but an excuse for local mafia and influential groups to enter politics only to pursue personal interests and material gains, while the community remains "too weak" to regulate against bad candidates.

Certainly the case in the village where I live. Local officials are wealthy, large houses on large estates, new businesses appear on land that was supposed to be allocated to the poor and lots of new vehicles in driveways. Intimidation at election time and the same people changing positions.

[cloudhopper]

Central command and control failed for the Soviets and it is failing here.

[smutcakes]

"At this point, the junta needs to be clear about whether they want to centralise their power or decentralise it. However, the powers-that-be also need to remember that centralising power goes against the political stance of the People's Democratic Reform Committee, the Democrat Party and elected local administration officials."

haha, i bet the junta is quaking in their boots... as if the Dems/PDRC had the moral fortitude, ethics to actually stand up for what they believe in!

All they believe in is getting their snouts back in the trough, and the coup is the only way they could do it...

Luckily for them it seems the end goal is to make it that only they and their military and Bangkok buddies are allowed in power. God forbid actually having to be elected by the Thai populace. I expect what they really want to do is centralize for the north/north east, and decentralize for their buddies in the south.

[MilesofSmiles]

Giving local/provincial admin bodies some real authority, and not interfering with them would seem the logical solution.

How is this not obvious ?

In 2014 Local mafias, untouchable with their own little fiefdoms, and cops who don't/cant/wont enforce the law is ridiculous.

[NeverSure]

New boss, same boss, different colored shirt.

[lomatopo]

"Decentralization" was one of the primary (three or so: education, free & fair elections) categories of "reform" sought by the PDRC, and their sponsors (amart, military), even though Thai governance is totally decentralized down to the village level.

It never made sense for the amart to want to cede any control to the serfs, so "re-centralization" should hardly come as a shock.

[selftaopath]

Why? Because many genuinely believe that local administration elections are nothing but an excuse for local mafia and influential groups to enter politics only to pursue personal interests and material gains, while the community remains "too weak" to regulate against bad candidates.

Certainly the case in the village where I live. Local officials are wealthy, large houses on large estates, new businesses appear on land that was supposed to be allocated to the poor and lots of new vehicles in driveways. Intimidation at election time and the same people changing positions.

Hi neighbor. We MUST live in the same village.... sounds the same, looks the same. :-)

[Globalist]

"Why? Because many genuinely believe that local administration elections are nothing but an excuse for local mafia and influential groups to enter politics only to pursue personal interests and material gains, while the community remains "too weak" to regulate against bad candidates."

If this is a correct statement, the next question is; why is the community "too weak"?

I've come to believe that the low quality of the education system nationwide is the root cause of almost all of Thailand's problems. Is it perhaps a long term intentional plan by the "Bangkok elite" to keep "the masses" unenlightened...?

Edited October 21, 2014 by Globalist

[zyphodb]

"Why? Because many genuinely believe that local administration elections are nothing but an excuse for local mafia and influential groups to enter politics only to pursue personal interests and material gains, while the community remains "too weak" to regulate against bad candidates."

If this is a correct statement, the next question is; why is the community "too weak"?

I've come to believe that the low quality of the education system nationwide is the root cause of almost all of Thailand's problems. Is it perhaps a long term intentional plan by the "Bangkok elite" to keep "the masses" unenlightened...?

Ran out of likes but I agree about education & also with your last point about keeping the masses uneducated, no other possible explanation for it that I can see...

[Briggsy]

Sound analysis from Trakool Meechai. Can't disagree with that.

[stander]

The first people totalitarians destroy or silence are men of ideas and free minds. - Sir Isaiah Berlin

[Briggsy]

"Why? Because many genuinely believe that local administration elections are nothing but an excuse for local mafia and influential groups to enter politics only to pursue personal interests and material gains, while the community remains "too weak" to regulate against bad candidates."

If this is a correct statement, the next question is; why is the community "too weak"?

I've come to believe that the low quality of the education system nationwide is the root cause of almost all of Thailand's problems. Is it perhaps a long term intentional plan by the "Bangkok elite" to keep "the masses" unenlightened...?

Whilst low educational standards is a small factor, I believe the main factor is that local politics here is very violent. Read the local press and you will find "canvassers" are always being shot all over the country.

The Thai definition of a "canvasser" is someone who puts himself forward as the intermediary between a group of people and someone higher up the chain, say, a kamnan or or bor tor. The "canvasser" promises to deliver a block of votes from a village and in return gets paid for this. The "canvasser" obviously takes some danger pay for himself and then distributes cash or sarongs or whiskey or whatever to the villagers.

In order to do this successfully, the "canvasser" needs to be accepted as a leader or spokesperson by the village, needs to be able to protect himself against violence, be connected to local police and government officials and be prepared to take risk. It is not for the faint-hearted.

The "canvasser" system is how politics works outside the urban areas. This, I believe, is the main reason that only local mafias can succeed in politics at the local level in Thailand (again, outside the main urban areas, principally Bangkok only)

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Central command and control failed for the Soviets and it is failing here.

North Korea has a decentralized command and control through localized elections. It's just not that such elections are open and free, and like the NCPO proposals, candidates for office are selected by the State like China plans for Hong Kong's first elections in 2016.

[Globalist]

"Why? Because many genuinely believe that local administration elections are nothing but an excuse for local mafia and influential groups to enter politics only to pursue personal interests and material gains, while the community remains "too weak" to regulate against bad candidates."

If this is a correct statement, the next question is; why is the community "too weak"?

I've come to believe that the low quality of the education system nationwide is the root cause of almost all of Thailand's problems. Is it perhaps a long term intentional plan by the "Bangkok elite" to keep "the masses" unenlightened...?

Whilst low educational standards is a small factor, I believe the main factor is that local politics here is very violent. Read the local press and you will find "canvassers" are always being shot all over the country.

True, there are a number of immediate factors. But I believe that the root cause is still the lack of proper education. This is not only limited to Thailand of course. I think you need a critical mass of sufficiently educated people (i.e. who can think critically and creatively) in order to uphold a modern civil society such as the Western and some east Asian ones. There is no such critical mass yet in e.g. Thailand.