
On Feb 1, Provincial Administration Organisation (PAO) elections will be held in 47 out of 77 provinces. Late last year, there were elections in 29 provinces, where the PAO presidents resigned before their terms ended.
The forthcoming local election cycle is of paramount importance for the governance of the country.
Historically, the public has paid little attention to PAOs, despite the fact that this form of local administration plays a vital role in delivering public services to communities.
From a political perspective, PAOs serve as a robust foundation for political development. However, it appears the public perceives PAOs as underutilised entities that have not yet realised their full potential.
Notably, the upcoming election on Feb 1 has prompted parties to focus on local elections with unprecedented intensity.
For the first time, the leaders of Thailand's two major parties -- Pheu Thai and the People's Party (a faction of the Move Forward Party) -- are directly competing and actively campaigning for the positions of PAO presidents and council members.
This development raises a significant question: Will the heightened political activity contribute to enhancing the effectiveness of PAOs in serving the public, or is the current campaign by prominent political figures merely a transient phenomenon?
There are concerns the Feb 1 election may not result in fundamental changes within PAOs. This article will explore these challenges and discuss the necessary reforms to empower PAOs as engines of local development and governance.
To substantiate my less-than-optimistic projection, it is necessary to revisit the historical context of the Provincial Administrative Organisation (PAO) Act, which was enacted in 1955.
Initially, this local administration was overseen by the Ministry of the Interior through provincial governors.
The PAOs functioned as a quasi-local administrative entity managing public affairs across all provinces. Their policies and budgets were controlled by the Ministry of the Interior, which appointed governors -- state officials responsible for supervising the PAOs.
A significant transformation occurred in 1997 when an amendment to the PAO Act introduced substantial reforms. This update facilitated the election of provincial councillors, who in turn would elect the chief executive of the PAO.
This fundamental change diminished the roles of provincial governors and the Ministry of the Interior, effectively transitioning PAOs from a form of pseudo-local administration to quasi-local government.
Subsequent legal revisions further empowered PAOs. For instance, the 2003 amendment mandated the president and all councillors of the PAO be directly elected by voters, rather than being appointed by elected councillors.
In terms of political administration, this reform brought the status of PAOs closer to that of local governments.
However, this is largely theoretical. In practice, provincial governors continue to overshadow the roles of PAO presidents and the heads of various local government entities.
This dynamic undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of PAOs and other local governments in Thailand.
Despite their evolution, PAOs remain neither fully-fledged local governments nor autonomous bodies, and they continue to encounter numerous challenges.
Firstly, the authority of provincial administrative organisations (PAOs) remains ambiguous, as they operate concurrently with central, provincial, and local governments.
This overlap leads to duplication and redundancy in public services. Furthermore, local administrative bodies within provinces often engage in competition with one another.
For instance, smaller municipalities and tambon administrative organisations vie with PAOs for control over budgets and responsibilities, resulting in inefficiencies and conflicts.
Secondly, the operations of PAOs are subject to oversight by the central government or provincial governors, which constrains their ability to respond effectively to local needs or emergencies, such as floods or natural disasters.
Additionally, political influences emanating from coalitions and parliamentary bodies frequently affect decision-making within PAOs. Consequently, some decisions are motivated by political considerations rather than the actual needs of the public.
Thirdly, PAOs are unable to undertake large-scale development projects independently. They are required to allocate expenditures according to programmes designated by the central government, which are sometimes influenced by members of parliament who provide directives or guidelines to the PAOs within their respective provinces.
Often, budget disbursement is driven by political negotiations, leading to uneven development, inequality, and inequity. Some PAOs face challenges in balancing development needs between urban centres and rural areas, frequently directing resources towards more populous or politically significant regions.
Fourthly, in this context, PAOs across the nation experience minimal public participation.
Local citizens are frequently underrepresented in decision-making processes, resulting in a disconnect between the priorities of PAOs and the needs of the community.
Opportunities for residents to express their concerns or contribute to policy and project formulation are limited. Moreover, inadequate oversight by higher authorities or civil society organisations hampers accountability, further eroding public trust.
It is evident the performance of PAOs in Thailand has long been impeded by a lack of transparency, weak public participation, and the dominance of provincial governors.
While digital technology has the potential to enhance public service delivery, increase citizen engagement, and facilitate monitoring of budget expenditures and procurement, some politicians resist change or impose additional constraints.
The pressing question is how to rectify this situation.
Incremental steps in the right direction can pave the way for meaningful reform.
To begin with, digital tools should be employed to enhance transparency and citizen engagement. However, the introduction of digital initiatives must be gradual and subtle to avoid outright rejection.
For example, the development of user-friendly, citizen-focused platforms for sharing non-sensitive information, such as project updates and essential budget summaries, can help build trust over time.
Similarly, simple online forums for citizen input can enable communities to articulate their needs, thereby aligning PAO priorities more closely with public concerns.
The adoption of digital technologies can facilitate PAO reform and improve public services, creating a ripple effect on local governments and public institutions.
As transparency and accountability become standard practices, these changes can propel Thailand towards governance standards akin to those of high-income nations.
Estonia has already demonstrated how digital governance can transform a country, and Thailand, too, can follow this path to achieve sustainable development and equitable prosperity for all.
Such reforms are a crucial step towards a high-income future for Thailand.