34 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

administrative power, to introduce decentralization and foster strong civil society, and to downsize the central government, are policies that run counter to Thai government traditions and culture.

2.2.1.3 Third Legacy: Traditions of Hierarchy and Clientelism

By the early Bangkok period, everyone in the kingdom was ranked in a system of official hierarchy called sakdina (“dignity marks” or “power of the fields” or “landholding”). At the top of the hierarchy, the king’s sakdina was infinite. Royalty had sakdina ranks from one hundred thousand down to five hundred rai of land. Officials had ten thousand to four hundred rai. Ordinary commoners (phrai) had sakdina of ten to twenty-five rai. Slaves and beggars had five rai (Englehart 2001, 26–27). In addition to landholding ranks, the king also assigned titles that gave the bearers (nai) the right to command manpower (phrai). Phrai were mostly farmers who were used by their nai (master or superior) to cultivate fields for him. The nai kept track of his phrai and made their labor and resources available to higher levels of government (Englehart 2001, 38). He also gathered unmarked phrai to bring them into the official hierarchy. In fact, the nai-phrai system was an organization of manpower for defense against invasion. The nai-phrai hierarchical system also laid the foundation for social class differentiation in Thailand.

This legacy of hierarchy and clientelism helps explain why present-day Thais are very conscious of their positions in the social and administrative hierarchies. The bureaucracy is organized into a hierarchical pyramid. The bureaucratic system gives meaning and support to status (Siffin 1966, 151–168). People who come into contact with the bureaucracy are treated unequally depending on their social and economic status. A bureaucrat puts all his effort into moving up the ladder of the bureaucratic hierarchy. The more he moves up, the greater his social status, authoritative power, and prestige. Thais are very conscious of their positions in the social and career hierarchy, and this cultural trait is shown in the importance attached to superior-subordinate relations (puyai-punoi) in contemporary Thai society.

The social impulse toward hierarchy and the nai-phrai relationship constitutes the basis for patron-client relationships or clientelism in modern Thai politics and administration (Neher and Bowornwathana, 1986; Riggs, 1966). Patrons and their clients enter into an exchange relationship that fosters nepotism, corruption, and bureaucratic inefficiency (Scott, 1972; Punyaratabandhu and Unger, 2009). Thus, combating corruption becomes a gargantuan task, because corruption defi ned in western terms runs counter to the traditional practices of the Thai bureaucracy.

2.2.1.4 Fourth Legacy: A Tradition of Reconciliation

Unlike the Chinese Communist Revolution in 1912 that abolished monarchy, and the French Revolution of 1789 that ended absolute monarchy, the Thai 1932 revolution was more peaceful and compromising. Under constitutional monarchy, the Thai king became the head of state. Royalty and their descendants were allowed to retain their wealth and assets. Currently, there are 129 family lines from King Rama I to King Rama V. We can easily distinguish them by looking at their surnames ending in “Na Ayudhya.” Members of Na Ayudhya families have married outside their royal bloodlines, and intermarriage among different groups has helped harmonize Thai society.

The tradition of reconciliation is practiced to the present day. Even though some of their wealth and assets were confiscated by the state, corrupt military and civilian prime ministers such as Field Marshal Sarit, Field Marshal Thanom, Field Marshal Prapass, General Suchinda, and former

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

History and Political Context of Public Administration in Thailand 35

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra were allowed to retain a portion of their wealth and assets. Corrupt leaders and their families are sometimes “socially pardoned” and can lead a normal life in the country. The assets and properties of their families and relatives are mostly left untouched.

2.2.2 Bureaucratic Elites as Master (1932–1973)

On June 24, 1932, a group of western-educated military and civilian bureaucrats overthrew the absolute monarchy and replaced it with a constitutional monarchy. Political power changed hands from the king to the bureaucratic elites. The political arena shifted from the king’s court to the military bureaucracy. King Prajadhipok (Rama VII) abdicated in March 1935. The new king was HRH Prince Ananda Mahidol, the 10-year-old son of HRH Prince Mahidol of Songkhla, one of King Chulalongkorn’s sons. In the beginning, the bureaucratic elites were powerful because the young king spent most of his time studying in Switzerland.

One must remember that T hai kings are descended from a tradition of warrior generals. Historically, a military general wielded a lot of political clout, and still does to the present day. In 1932, constitutional monarchy was established and modern western ideas about “professional soldiers” were introduced. But history and tradition have shown that in Thailand, soldiers are more than soldiers—they were the traditional power holders for 700 years.

At present, military elites are military men in high positions in the army, the air force, and the navy. Army elites are more powerful than elites from the navy and the air force. The police in Thailand are organized like the army, with ranks that go as high as police general. When one speaks about the political role of the military in Thailand, one tends to include the police as well. There are roughly 300 army generals and 300 police generals in Thailand. Military elites have frequently staged coups d’état to become prime ministers, cabinet ministers, and members of Parliament. Invariably, the coup makers are graduates of the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy. The pattern of accession to government power by the military elites is determined by their graduating class. For example, if the coup leader is from Class 1, he is likely to appoint his classmates from the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy to key positions in the government. Some Classes are more powerful than others. To be in power, the military leader must maintain a patron-client network that incorporates military men from other Classes as well. Graduates from Junior Classes must be co-opted because they are commanding officers of key military battalions. Eventually these junior officers will follow the power succession tradition by becoming prime ministers and cabinet members.

2.2.2.1First Legacy: The Tradition of Bureaucratic Elites as a Privileged Group

During absolute monarchy, Thai bureaucrats were already a powerful and privileged group, but they were under the absolute monarch. After the overthrow of absolute monarchy, the power and privilege of the bureaucratic elites were much enhanced because they became the primary power holders. Key military and civilian bureaucrats were appointed as cabinet members and members of Parliament. They became the new political heads of the Thai bureaucracy. For example, Field Marshal Pibulsongkram’s cabinet (March 21, 1957 to September 16, 1957) consisted of 12 military men, 2 policemen, and 8 civilians.

The struggle for power was a struggle for high positions in the military among patrons and factions of the bureaucratic elites. To be the commander in chief of the Royal Thai Army was the best assurance for becoming prime minister. To be a core member of the faction under the

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

36 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

commander in chief of the Royal Thai Army was the best assurance for being appointed minister and member of Parliament. Within the bureaucracy, bureaucratic elites became the patrons of various cliques and factions. Career advancement of bureaucrats was based on the power of their respective patrons and factions.

Thus, for four decades until 1973, the Thai polity was ruled mainly by military elites. Thailand was marked by short-lived civilian governments, a series of military coups d’état, martial laws, military governments, and constitution promulgations. Most of the time, however, political power was in the hands of military dictators. “Bureaucratic polity” is the term used by scholars to describe the Thai polity during this period when politics was exclusively in the hands of bureaucratic elites, and extra-bureaucratic political institutions that could control the bureaucracy in the interests of the people were not developed (Riggs, 1966; Siffin, 1966; Wilson, 1962). In this author’s opinion, however, the term bureaucratic polity may be slightly misleading, as power was exclusively in the hands of military elites, and high civilian bureaucrats in the cabinet were performing the roles of technical experts such as in the area of economics, trading, and banking. Therefore, the terms “military polity” and “military elites” seem more appropriate.

High bureaucrats, military and civilian alike, were in control of their own bureaucracy. It was customary for these elites to make reform decisions beneficial to their own group. The gap between bureaucratic elites and subordinate bureaucrats began to widen in terms of power, prestige, rewards, and social status. This legacy lingers on to the present. In previous research conducted on rewards of high public office in present-day Thailand, the author observed that the gap between the rewards of high bureaucrats and the lower echelons is widening. The Thai model of rewards for high public office has the following characteristics: politics take precedence over rationality in reward decisions; rewards focus on nourishing and perpetuating the elite class or rule by the few; informal rewards override formal rewards; concern is for status rather than monetary returns; public office is seen as an economic opportunity, not as service to the public; hierarchy governs rewards allocation; information about rewards of high public office is kept as secret as possible; and high public officials make their own reward decisions (Bowornwathana, 2006a).

2.2.2.2Second Legacy: A Tradition of Authoritarian Rule, Centralization, and Big Government

In the period 1932–1973, military leaders took turns to assume political power, and administrative reform was undertaken to centralize power in the hands of military dictators. In other words, the tradition of authoritarian rule, centralization, and big government set forth by the early era of kings as master was followed. During Field Marshal Sarit’s rule, a giant ministry—the Ministry of National Development—was established, and the power of central agencies such as the Budget Bureau and the National Social and Economic Development Board was strengthened. A drastic reorganization of the Office of the Prime Minister took place, which centralized policy-making authority and control in the hands of the prime minister (Chaloemtiarana 1979, 276–83). Many state enterprises were established with military generals as directors and board members. For example, Field Marshal Pibulsongkram converted the Royal State Railway into a state enterprise in 1951, and the first governor was an army general. Under the premiership of Field Marshal Thanom, the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand was set up as a state enterprise in 1968. In 1967, the Metropolitan Waterworks Authority, another state enterprise, was established with Field Marshal Prapass as the first chairman of the board.

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

History and Political Context of Public Administration in Thailand 37

A single hierarchy with a strong military leader at the top was seen as the ideal government structure. The guiding values were loyalty and obedience to the military dictator, spoils and nepotism, and corruption. The democratic principle of a government that is accountable to citizens did not exist. Mass media and the press were strictly censored. Notable prime ministers during this period were Field Marshal Pibulsongkram, Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, and Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn.

In the bureaucratic polity, politics was a struggle for power among different factions in the military elite. While retaining their powerful military positions, military leaders assumed political positions. Military generals became prime ministers, cabinet members, members of Parliament and the Senate. Short-lived elected governments were often overthrown by military coups d’état. In short, government reform consolidated power in the hands of a single military dictator. Thus, the authoritarian tradition of administrative reform was very much alive, despite the fact that the overthrow of the absolute monarchy was meant to end absolute rule. An example of Thai admiration for a strong authoritarian leader is the case of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat. Despite the fact that Sarit was a corrupt prime minister and had at least one hundred wives, he was acclaimed as a decisive leader.

2.2.2.3 Third Legacy: The Practice of Staging Military Coups

Since the establishment of constitutional monarchy in 1932, there were 12 coups d’état and 13 rebels (failed attempts by the military to seize power). The frequency of using military power to topple governments reduced from the period 1932–1973 to the period 1973–present. There were four military coups and three rebels during the latter period. The belief that there will never be a military coup again because Thailand is now a democratic country has been proven false several times. Thus, we cannot rule out the possibility of another military coup in the near future. Nevertheless, things are no longer the same. It appears that it is becoming more and more difficult for the military to justify any coup attempt. Judging from the efforts of General Sondhi Boonyaratglin to justify his 2006 coup against the incumbent Thaksin government, and General Anupong Paochinda’s recent reluctance to stage a coup against the Samak and Somchai governments at the request of many Thais in 2008, one can say that things have changed. Increasingly, military coups will be less acceptable to the growing urban educated middle class. If a military leader stages a coup without good reason, the urban educated middle class will protest. To accept military coups as an instrument to solve political crises is quite foreign for westerners; but it is less so for Thais. Two major conditions constitute raison d’etre for a military coup: an extremely corrupt government and a government leader who is thought to threaten the monarchy.

2.2.2.4 Fourth Legacy: A Tradition for Military Elites to be Loyal to the King

Despite the overthrow of absolute monarchy by a group of military men and civilians, the tradition for the military to be extremely loyal to the monarchy has been maintained. In fact, the love and respect that people have toward the present king and His Majesty’s own personal charisma and goodness have reinforced this tradition of loyalty (Suwannathat-Pian, 2003). One of the main duties of the Thai military is to protect the monarchy. Some military troops are royal guards or troops under the royal patronage of the king, queen, prince, and princesses. The Prince and Princesses have military ranks of generals. They teach at the military schools.

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC