In Thailand, there is widespread discussion as to whether the provincial and subdistrict administrative organisations (PAOs and SAOs) should be radically reformed or even abolished.
There is a growing consensus that real democracy is not possible without more decentralised local governments. (Photo by Thanarak Khunton)
In July, the military government ordered a halt to direct elections of mayors and local councils. The junta's controversial move led many to cast doubt on the future of the country's local government reform.
In August the concern was amplified by one of the prominent bureaucrat-cum-cabinet-ministers, who used his personal Facebook page to comment on an unnamed PAO president's extravagant lifestyle and local construction contract scandals. The minister's remarks went viral and aroused uproar among local elected officials.
However, local misgovernance and corruption scandals are nothing new in Thailand. Since decentralisation officially began almost two decades ago, local government authorities have been tainted by scandal. Many ordinary citizens — even those passionate about Western-style democracy — are sceptical about the merits of local government administration. Why? Too frequently, national politicians' family members and entourage ascend to the upper echelons of local administrative organisations. In numerous cases, local electoral competition is far from a peaceful struggle for political power and can divide communities.
Apart from the political issues, much public criticism directed at Thai local government agencies centres on their limited provision of public services, which is, however, due to the fact that the 1999 Decentralisation Act has not been fully implemented. The PAOs in particular are often accused of draining government coffers due to lack of clarity regarding their public service responsibility. Meanwhile, the SAOs, charged with providing services to the rural population, are stigmatised as the most backward of public agencies.
Are all the apples in the barrel rotten? The answer is no.
Similar to all human social systems, the local government landscape is extremely dynamic and diverse. In addition, Thailand still has much to learn from other Asian countries in which local government offers a rich laboratory for democracy and innovative management ideas.
Certainly, local mismanagement and corruption occur in these countries as well. However, national government leaders have served in local government. Even in China, key members of the Communist Party have had extensive work experience at the provincial and local levels. Throughout Asia, local government has helped groom a new generation of leaders.
Unfortunately, the national political climate in Thailand over the past decade has been unconducive to the emergence of new leaders from local government. It is the nature of reporting that political violence and street protests in Bangkok have attracted more media coverage than the success stories coming out of the main test-ground for decentralised democracy, the long-impoverished Northeast.
Nevertheless, northeastern local government agencies can serve a vital role in improving citizens' quality of life. In Nong Bua Lam Phu, the hallmark of the current PAO presidency is to ensure that all physically disabled and senior citizens have equal access to rehabilitative services.
In 2010, in collaboration with the National Health Security Office (NHSO), the Nong Bua Lam Phu PAO created a Medical Rehabilitation Fund to provide medical programmes for its constituents. For four years, these programmes have made a difference to the lives of more than 100,000 Nong Bua Lam Phu citizens, especially the poor.
The nearby province of Udon Thani boasts two jurisdictions in which the local government authorities are active in health promotion activities. In the fast growing Muang (downtown) district, the Udon Thani City government has embarked on a bold move to provide a variety of medical facilities, such as a municipal hospital and multiple primary healthcare offices.
The municipality also allocated significant funds for landscaping and improving public parks. These parks serve as important arenas for citizens to engage in all kinds of physical exercises and are a key part of central government policies to create a healthy population, including independent seniors.
Local government leadership is equally evident in some Udon Thani rural areas. In Naphu subdistrict, the SAO president has demonstrated a great passion for his community's health and development. Despite the SAO's budget constraints and limited discretionary spending power, the president has made it his goal to keep drinking water quality at the highest possible level.
Apart from the sanitation and hygiene issues he has championed, the Naphu SAO has made substantial investments and efforts in reducing its residents' iodine deficiency — a serious problem of the Northeast closely related to low IQ and thyroid complaints. Programmes to address this problem, including hens raised on iodine-mixed feed and a school lunch menu that includes iodine-enriched ingredients, have now been in effect for many years.
Interestingly, compared with their adjacent communities, the three localities have long suffered from locally generated revenue shortfalls. Two of the local leaders do not even hold a degree in public health. Their public health commitment arose from informal interaction with the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) officials. Many of the health programmes described above were made possible through these informal networks and technical assistance from the MOPH.
And therein lies the problem. As Thailand is moving forward with her political and administrative reform, too much emphasis is being placed on the restructuring of local government rather than improving what is already there. Public service functions for each type of local government, such as education or health, need more clarification rather than increasingly complex levels of paperwork and authorisation.
Draconian bureaucratic rules that impede innovation, collaboration, and citizen participation, including participatory democracy, must be changed. Then, informal networks need to be transformed into replicable policies that can be implemented country wide.
Of course, bad local administrators are out there. But, there are also transformational leaders who endeavour to bring positive changes to their communities. To strengthen Thai democracy, the bad local leaders should be dealt with by their own constituents, not by Bangkok, using the tools of participatory democracy, such as recalls (impeachment) and anti-corruption hotlines. The NCPO's flagship civic education programme could also be helpful — but only if it is designed to enhance both local democratic participation and political leadership.
Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha holds a PhD in Public Administration and Political Science from Northern Illinois University and is a lecturer at the College of Local Administration at Khon Kaen University.