Politics Thai

7/26/2019 Politics Thai

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/politics-thai 1/4

1. What are major causes, debates, contents and impacts of the 1990s political reform

and the 1997 constitution to the Thai politics? How did they pae the way to the

Tha!sin re"ime and the Thai #a! Thai party to rise in power?

Reformations of Thai decentralization were mostly initiated throughout the 1980s and

early 1990s. Firstly, some minor changes are included in the initial reforms of the local

institutions and increase remarkably in the e increase in the local authoritys re!enue sharing.

"es#ite to these fledgling reforms, the attem#t of the go!ernment is without serious

renegotiation on the arrangements of centre$local until the leading u# #eriod of the 199%

constitution #romulgation. &n general, these strongly #olitical efforts and the fiscal

decentralization are attributed by #re!ious 'rime (inister )huan *eek#ai+s in his first

administration 199-$199/. &n that #eriod of time, Thailands socio$economic and #olitical

situation in common had turned into the decentralization fa!or. The economic de!elo#ment of

Thailand from 190s had lessen the fear #ercei!ed that the cultural di!ersity will endanger

the national integration. n the ethnic minorities as#ect, the !iews had shifted from the

issues of national security during the cold war to decentralization and the issue of li!elihood

in 1990s. 2ssumingly, the more willing of minorities were to identify the nation$state of Thai

since there are more for them to obtain economically. (oreo!er, after the cold war ended,

there was the less of threat from communism to the national security. 2dditionally, thecolla#se of the central #laned economies in the #rior 3astern 4loc #rom#ted a trend of

demands for more #olitical #artici#ation by citizens in Thailand as well. There are two

reasons for beginning the decentralization as following5

1. The economic de!elo#ment and the e6tent of democratic ideas through the country

that mentioned #re!iously can be im#lied that much of the citizenry had de!elo#ed more

intensely aware of their rights and therefore demanded more #olitical #artici#ation.

-. &t was #ointed out that the decentralization agenda was mostly been ins#ired by the

lobbying and #olitical act of emergent organizations of ci!il society, which noticed it as an

intention to rise trans#arency and res#onsibility in go!ernment and o!ercome the #ower of

corru#t national #oliticians and bureaucrats. These grou#s of ci!il society found associates,

howe!er, in the indigenous #olitical bosses who e6#ected to ad!antage from more nati!e

autonomy and control o!er resources deli!ered to localities by the domestic go!ernment.

7econdly, and as im#ortance as the need to enhance democracy, this was the country

leaders recognition on that the central go!ernment could not sol!e e!ery of #ro!incial



#roblems in Thailand if there is no substantial centre$local relations alteration and the

fundamental #roblematic rethinking in facing with the local go!ernments. 2t last, an aborti!e

#rodemocracy demonstrators but !ery brutal crackdown in 199- had not only assisted the

e6#ectations concertize on the common #o#ulation in regard of economical and #olitical

reform, but it had also com#elled most of all the key #olitical #arties in the national election

cam#aign of 199- to embrace the electoral #latforms that #romising to ad!ance

decentralization !ia the local elections and sub national fiscal autonomy establishment.

owe!er, this does not im#ly the #olitical #artys mainstream that were con!inced by the

decentralization #olices and genuinely su##orted on this obecti!e. &n #lace, the against the

military dictatorshi# and a corollary democracy su##ort in wides#read #o#ular hatred ust

sim#ly left the #oliticians with all stri#es a little choice rather than to cater for the electorate

by the decentralization )onstitution endorsing in 199% and a 1999 "ecentralization 2ct. 4oth

had s#ecified the ambitious go!ernmental structures decentralization #rogram. &n the ne6t

few years, the local bodies election were formed in the le!el of munici#al, sub$district, and

#ro!incial le!el, by the way the first local administration bodies so called Tambon le!el were

formed during 199: after Tambon 2dministrati!e 2uthority 2ct and Tambon )ouncil. The

decentralization #rocess since then had formed se!eral of local le!el administration outfits.

There were more than ,%00 T2s by 1999 and the role of rural communities in T2s are

su##osed to rise and this em#ower them on their #olicy formulation and decision making.

;nder this effort, many of tasks in coo#eration with the #ersonnel and budget from the

central administration ha!e been transferred at the le!el of local go!ernment. The

res#onsibility of T2s is related to fi!e tasks which are5

1/ 'lanning and de!elo#ment of local and community<

-/ 'romotion of local economic de!elo#ment, in!estment, em#loyment, trade, and

tourism<

=/ *ocal #ublic ser!ices #ro!ision<

:/ 7ocial welfare ser!ices, including education, #rimary health care, housing, arts and

cultures, and<

/ 'romotion of democratic !alues, ci!il rights, #ublic #artici#ation, law and order,

conflict resolution.



>ot only induced the decentralization but these #olicy reforms also the #olitical

decentralization for e6am#le, through the shifts in local elections, the local residents were

ca#able to make the direct election on the local councils and head of sub district. (oreo!er,

other o##ortunities also gi!en to the local in!ol!ement for instance, the initiations, #ublic

hearings, and referendums that could lead to the new law ado#tion, or #articular go!ernment

#olicy. (oreo!er, now #eo#le do ha!e right to access into the local management #ractices

information and #artici#ate in the #rocesses of #rocurement, as well as im#each the local

e6ecuti!es and re#resentati!es.

The strong forces also #resented against the #olitical decentralization and the s#ecific

bureaucrats that attem#ted by the (inistry of &nterior to influence on the #rocess according to

their way. "es#ite the goal of laudable, too ambitious, the #rogram was on the

decentralization degree. Too much and so tiny units of administration ha!e been created for

e6am#le, the a!erage Tambon cannot su##ort for the #rofessional administrati!e staff or high

school with the beginning of reform #rocess by the (inistry of &nterior to enoy with the right

to a##oint the #ro!incial go!ernors in o##ose to the go!ernors election.

7ince the o##osition to #o#ular go!ernors elections, #ur#osefully, the (inistry of

&nterior formed u# the 'ro!incial 2dministrati!e rganizations '2/ and T2s to be the

alternati!es for administration. &t was also suggested by >agai -001/ that in that #eriod, the

su##ort from (inistry of &nterior on the decentralization #olicies was entirely de#ended on

the self$ser!ing moti!es where, T2s does only a##ear to re#resent for decentralization.

owe!er, the actual obecti!e might be to strengthen the (inistry of &nterior authority

through the go!ernmental offices establishment on Tambon le!el. They may ha!e been with

sincere intention to form many of little T2s to bring #olitics close to #eo#le as much as

#ossible by the way< in consideration of the (inistry of &nterior reluctance to gi!e u# the

#ower with higher sinister intention ha!e come to mind. 4y forming the amount of small

units, the central agents su#eriority is always remained and the little T2s myriad does not

allow that bigger #layers to emerge that could challenge on the relationshi# #ower of the

local$center.

&t seems that the democratic decentralization is feasible and it had gi!en sufficient

wills on #olitical to the #art of central go!ernment to remain with decentralization initiati!e

o!ertime. owe!er, the go!ernments ha!e shifted and with their #olitical agenda when the

#ower was on Thaksin. 7ince then, the decentralizing was at best and not become the to#ic on



his agenda. 'rime (inister Thaksin 7hinawatra came to #ower since -001$-00, where he

was de#osed by the military cou#. The "ecentralization )ommittee under his go!ernment

had submitted the #lan for "ecentralization &m#lementation to the (inisters )ouncil for a

year in the wake of the legally com#ulsory schedule. (oreo!er, the strategy of Thaksin to

enhance the #owers of the unelected #ro!incial go!ernors is with no doubt a reinter#retation

to the main centre$#eri#hery articles in the 199% )onstitution. 4eneath the new scheme, the

go!ernors with greatly$em#owered would ser!e as the cor#orate )hief 36ecuti!e fficers

)3/ will full authority of management and the final right on e!ery local go!ernmental

branches including #ersonnel, budgets, and amount of assignments. >o #erformance indices

#ro!ided to assess the )3 ?o!ernors #erformances. (oreo!er, none of #rescribing

formalized on the way to select the )3 ?o!ernors. Thailand was a##arently centralizing

during its decentralizing, and at the same #eriod, for the first time in the history Thaksin

recognized the #astoral electorate as doable !oters.

Thus, des#ite the more authoritarian style of go!ernment, he o#ened the door to the

rural electorate #olitical #artici#ation to the national le!el. 2##arently, #olicy by Thaksin to

strengthen his #olitical basis with the rural #o#ulation was seen as the traditional bureaucrats

threats and other @elite interests. 4y forming the !ast #olitical base for the rural #o#ulation,

4angkok seems to ha!e less accountable on him on the electoral su##ort, where the middleclass and urban elite anger on him become largely from the fear to lose the national #olitics

influence, though such of an6iety was more than usual guised as a unwillingness to #ay for

the redistributi!e schemes of @Thaksin for instance, the moratorium debt or uni!ersal health

care. These #olicies had #ro!oked the influential elite grou#s, and #rom#ting them to su##ort

the inter!ention of military in -00.

Documents

Politics Thai