Thailand's current state of local administration does not bode well for democracy. The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), which took power two years ago, issued Order No. 22/2016 on May 4 that centralised power in the Ministry of the Interior.
The idea of local administration has been deep-rooted in the country since 1933 after King Prachadhipok expressed the view that the people required such a form of administration to develop the principle of democracy on a par with the more politically and economically advanced countries. That was the starting point for moves towards Thailand's local administration.
As a result of King Prachadhipok's vision, Thailand began its first local government experiment, the concept of municipality. In 1935, it changed the status of Thailand's 35 sukapiban sanitary districts, established by King Chulalongkorn, into municipalities. The wishes of the King became a reality, but it was only short lived. While the centralised administrative power of the monarchy shifted downward to the people, a distinctive administrative power structure, which also formed a ruling class, was established around the monarchy and usurped that power. The strong modern bureaucratic state was born.
The most powerful bureaucracy, second only to the military, has traditionally been the Ministry of Interior (MOI). In 1952, the MOI was able to exercise supreme power through a ministerial announcement that enabled it to classify some geographical areas as sanitary districts. The district office chief, the centrally appointed management arm of the provincial governor, was delegated full power to head the sanitary districts, but found it was politically inexpedient to intervene in the management of the municipalities because it would appear to be contravening the royal wish of the King.
In an attempt to consolidate its power, in 1955 the MOI proposed the Provincial Administrative Organisation (PAO) Act. Heads of the PAOs, who were placed under the supervision of the provincial governors, served as representatives of the MOI and were authorised to oversee all provincial affairs. This allowed the PAOs and the governors to administer both sanitary areas and municipalities.
After Black May 1992, the populace demanded a democratic form of government and good governance. Thais realised that making government more transparent, accountable, efficient and effective would enhance economic and social development. As a first step, in 1994 the parliament approved legislation to create the Tambon Administrative Organisation (TAO) as another lower level of local government. TAOs were vested with the responsibility to address hardships and promote the well-being of local people.
The creation of the TAOs left the PAOs with less responsibility. However, the power of the governor to control Local Administration Organisations (LAOs) in all provinces, except the Bangkok Metropolitan Area (BMA), remained intact under the National Government Organisation Act of 1991. Nonetheless, the people's continuing demands culminated in the 1997 people's constitution, which formalised decentralisation to local administration organisations. Though this constitution was abolished by the 2006 coup, the 2007 constitution was still in principle committed to decentralised management.
Despite this formalised commitment, Thailand has made little progress in local administration. When considering all three components of decentralisation, namely administrative, fiscal and political aspects, Thailand has virtually made no inroads on the first two aspects of decentralisation.
Only in political decentralisation did it achieve considerable success. Local elected councillors and directly elected local administrators emerged. Research indicates these local leaders are reasonably capable, work well together, are accountable to their constituencies, and understand the functional differentiation system of local governance. They are generally cognisant of and committed to democratic values. In them, local leadership and an apparent willingness and capacity for greater decentralisation have been demonstrated.
Then, for no legitimate reason, on July 10, 2014, the NCPO issued an announcement to suspend the election of local administration officials whose terms of service had expired or would soon expire.
That announcement did not specifically mention vacancies due to dissolution of positions by governors and was drafted at a time when the NCPO did not think it would need the ultimate legal status of Section 44 to legitimise its orders. On May 4, 2016, the NCPO shored up its power further by issuing a new order to select and appoint the interim membership of local councils in the case of their dissolution.
This NCPO order has severe ramifications for the future of Thailand. First, it usurps the sovereign power of the people. This order has weakened the foundations and shattered the hopes of people for functional democracy. Further, if the NCPO still views that the current situation is not favourable for holding local elections, their logic suggests Thailand may not be ready for general elections by next year. Instead, if the NCPO is sincere in educating people in democracy, it should hold local elections as a means of training people in democracy, testing the political climate, and ensuring the preparedness of election commissioners before they are tasked with the national election.
Second, by exempting the BMA as a special type of local administration, the NCPO has endorsed the concepts of exclusion and discrimination against people in other provinces. Acting directly against its own wishes for unity, the NCPO is creating a massive group of second-class citizens, mainly consisting of ethnic minorities, outside the capital. In this scenario, there is no way the country can achieve "stability, prosperity and sustainability" as lauded by the NCPO. In fact, it damns any chances of reconciliation and is a recipe for division along social and ethnic cleavage lines.
Third, academicians in the field of local administration, such as those at NIDA and at King Prajadhipok's Institute, need to review their academic courses on, and research contributions towards, the development of democratic local administration. All Thai scholars in the field need to appreciate that their courses teaching local democracy are becoming academic exercises, with no practical application, their graduates not suitable for working for local people, only for totalitarianism.
Under the NCPO, we are training graduates to work for appointed local councillors and administrators who are not accountable to the people, only to a single ministry in Bangkok. Thailand's decades-long democratic experiment lies in ruins.
Peerasit Kamnuansilpa Phd is founder and former dean of the College of Local Administration (Cola), Khon Kaen University. John Draper is project officer, Isan Culture Maintenance and Revitalisation Programme (ICMRP), Cola, Khon Kaen University