Challenges of local self-government under Thai bureaucratic polity

The Author states that the political landscape following the 2014 coup d'état has profoundly impacted Thailand's decentralization process. The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) implemented measures that recentralized power, effectively causing decentralization to "go backward."

Events 

• Erosion of Local Democracy

The NCPO utilized Section 44 of the interim constitution to suspend local council elections (Announcement No. 85/2557), opting instead for a recruitment method. Subsequent orders were used to keep council members in their positions beyond their terms and to directly appoint and remove governors and mayors, as seen in Bangkok and Pattaya.

• The Governance Paradox: A fundamental contradiction characterizes the state's approach.

  • Mandated Decentralization: The 2017 Constitution and the 20-Year National Strategy (2017-2036) formally support local government. They mandate budget allocations to local government organizations, aiming for an eventual share of at least 35 percent of the government's net income.

  • Centralized Implementation: Simultaneously, the state utilizes local government organizations as mere tools to execute central policies and development directives, such as the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) and Special Economic Zones. Projects like the Pracharath project and the Thai Niyom Sustainable Project were implemented top-down through the Ministry of Interior, bypassing and undermining local leaders.

• Reinforcement of Patronage

This dynamic has weakened the role of local leaders, who often become more accountable to provincial governors and district chiefs than to the people they represent. This fosters a "second-class civil servant" mentality and reinforces traditional patronage systems, hindering the development of genuine local self-governance.

1. The Power to Make Decisions: Local government organizations should possess the independence to formulate their own development plans, set operational directions, and establish public policies relevant to their jurisdictions.

2. The Power to Allocate Resources: This entails the ability to manage local resources independently, including natural resources, the environment, and, critically, financial resources and budget administration.

3. The Power to Represent the People: A local government must have the capacity to represent the electorate, preserve their rights and interests, and respect the voices of the people.

Thailand's Southern border provinces, Pattani's autonomy is defined and limited by the state's security agenda.

• Context: Characterized by a history of violence and heavy state securitization. The Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) and the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Center (SBPAC) act as incarnations of the central government.

• Decision-Making: The municipality can exercise administrative power over economic and social matters, such as campaigning for tourism and addressing local issues like rubber prices. However, any matter related to security and public order requires the approval of ISOC.

• Resource Allocation: Its ability to raise revenue is severely constrained, as security risks deter investors from buying land and doing business. This results in "very little taxation" compared to other municipalities, forcing a reliance on state budgets and specific projects like tourism promotion.

• Representation: Local leaders actively engage with the community through monthly "Morning tea, municipalities meet people" events and use the Line messaging application for rapid problem reporting and resolution, bypassing bureaucratic channels.

As a designated Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and a key border gateway to Myanmar, India, and China, Mae Sot leverages its economic role to negotiate for greater authority.

• Context: A strategic location with significant central government investment plans, including the Trilateral Highway Project (India-Myanmar-Thailand).

• Decision-Making: The municipality has successfully initiated several development projects based on local needs, including a solid waste management-to-energy project and a mass rapid transit project.

• Resource Allocation: Benefits from a combination of local revenue and substantial budgets allocated by the central government to support SEZ infrastructure.

• Key Dynamic: The relationship between local and central government is described as one of "mutual exploitation." While central authority is present (e.g., Article 44 was used for city planning), the municipality's strategic importance allows it to bargain for resources, though its formal local authority has not been expanded.

Driven by a vision to become a "smart city," Khon Kaen stands out for its ability to mobilize non-state actors and resources, demonstrating the highest potential for self-government.

• Context: A history of being driven by non-state forces, including the private sector, civil society organizations (CSOs), universities, and the municipality itself.

• Decision-Making: The municipality leads ambitious infrastructure projects, such as a light rail system, which exceed normal budgetary capacities.

• Resource Allocation: To overcome financial limitations, Khon Kaen created a "four alliance" to manage human, academic, and budgetary resources. It has pursued innovative funding channels, including a joint venture local company, and utilized the Pracha-Rat policy channel.

• Representation: A system of "Tor Lek" (small municipalities) and "Tor Yai" (large municipalities) facilitates a multi-level structure for hearing and resolving community problems. The municipality excels at representing non-state actors in its governance framework.

• Overall Finding: Khon Kaen is identified as the "best example" of a local government exercising bargaining power.

The localization of SDGs is presented as a significant factor with a dual impact on self-governance. It offers a framework for development but also introduces new dependencies.

• Opportunities and Constraints: The implementation of SDGs provides opportunities to address local challenges in alignment with self-government principles. However, it also creates constraints, particularly a reliance on external technical assistance.

• Uneven Application: The study finds that Khon Kaen City Municipality has more opportunities related to SDG localization, whereas Mae Sot and Pattani face a mixed scenario of both opportunities and constraints.

• Potential for Partnership: There is an anticipation that pursuing SDGs could gradually transform the hierarchical relationship between central and local governments into a more equitable partnership, though this is a potential future outcome that has "yet to fully materialize."

Based on the study's findings, four key policy recommendations are proposed to advance local self-governance in Thailand.

1. Consolidation of Local Governments: Small-scale local government organizations should consider merging to form larger entities. This would enhance their capacity in terms of budget, resources, and personnel, allowing for more efficient and effective service delivery.

2. Foster Citizen Engagement: Actively encourage citizen participation in decision-making through mechanisms like open public hearings and referendums. This fosters local democracy and ensures development is aligned with community aspirations.

3. Establish Specialized Governance Models: Facilitate the creation of specialized forms of local government to address unique, complex problems. This could include:

   • A Special Administrative Region (SAR) for the southern border provinces, which are heavily influenced by martial law.

   • Autonomous provinces with directly elected governors in areas prepared to assume greater independence from the central government.

4. Restructure Central Administration: The Department of Local Administration should be reformed from a "command and control" authority into a supportive institution. Its role should shift to providing academic assistance, guidance, and supervision, as well as revising legislation to empower local entities.