42 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

2.2.4.3Third Emerging Legacy: Government must Serve Big Business Interests

Subordinate bureaucrats tried to adjust to their new political boss, former Prime Minister Thaksin. Those who served the new political boss well were promptly rewarded with promotions to higher and more powerful positions in the bureaucracy. Those who failed to please big businessmen-turned political boss, were abruptly transferred to inactive posts. Government bureaucrats were treated as “company employees” of big businessmen in power. The problem with big businessmen-led governments such as the T haksin government is that if one assumes that a government must serve the business interests of politicians in government, then the Thai polity will be overwhelmed with double standard practices, grand corruption, and conflicts of interest. Indeed, that was the story of Thaksin’s administration during 2001–2006 (Bowornwathana, 2009, 2009a; Pasuk and Baker, 2004; McCargo and Pathmanand, 2005).

2.2.5 Citizens as Master (1997–present)

“Citizens” here refers to educated persons who are supporters of the democratic reforms of public administration, which is much influenced by liberal ideas from western countries. Globalization plays a critical role in assimilation of the new foreign ideas of government reform, such as governance, into the educated Thai community. Educated Thais here may be intellectuals, educated middle and upper classes, or the educated poor.

Once in a while, this educated and active group is able to produce a major change or “big bang” in line with the principles and processes of democracy. The group does not occupy government positions. Its power for change is based on its ability to organize large groups of people in mass demonstrations to topple government and install western democratic institutions. Once the government falls, there is a power vacuum that provides pro-democracy citizens with the opportunity to introduce major changes in the government system by rewriting the constitution and pertinent laws. Examples of such political incidents include: the overthrow of absolute monarchy in 1932; the 1973 Student Revolution and the 1992 May Bloodshed that overthrew the military dictatorship and led to the promulgation of the 1997 Constitution; and the overthrow of the Thaksin government in 2006, leading to the 2007 Constitution that incorporates principles of democratic governance.

2.2.5.1Emerging Legacy: The Clash between Governance Values and Thai Realities

Governance or democratic governance has become the global trend for the ideal system of government in modern democracies. The basic assumption of governance is that the country belongs to the citizens and not to kings, military generals, politicians, or big businessmen. Citizens own government, and they are the true masters of all those who hold government positions. The prime minister, cabinet ministers, under-secretaries, directors-general, senators, members of Parliament, and other government officials are merely “representatives” of the citizens, working in the interests of the citizens. To make sure that these government officials operate accordingly, governance principles support the creation of independent accountability institutions that will monitor and guide the work of government and government officials to be in line with the principles of governance. Examples of these independent institutions are the Office of the Ombudsman, the constitutional court, the administrative court, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the State Audit Commission,

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

History and Political Context of Public Administration in Thailand 43

the Senate, and the Election Commission. The major principles of governance are accountability, transparency, fairness, honesty, integrity, equity, small central government, privatization, strong civil society, and local governments (Bowornwathana, 1997).

The problem is that these governance values do not fit well with the realities of Thai polity and society, thus resulting in reform hybrids and unintended consequences (Bowornwathana, 2001, 2004b, 2006c, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, forthcoming c). First, the creation of strong independent accountability institutions such as the constitutional court has raised several new questions: Are judges of the constitutional court indeed independent? Can they be influenced by other masters? Are the new accountability institutions in fact highly politicized? In this regard, several observations can be made. In the first place, those who have encountered adverse rulings meted out by accountability institutions often accuse the judges and commissioners of being biased and politicized. They accuse the judges of having been appointed by their political enemies. Second, positions in these new accountability institutions provide lucrative job opportunities for retired government officials (who retire at 60) to be retired at age 70 (which is the retirement age of members of the accountability institutions) and to benefit from the power, privileges, and rewards derived from their positions. Third, a new question also arises regarding the enormous power of accountability institutions that can put an end to or seriously obstruct the work of an elected government on legal grounds. The issue of “Who Guards the Guardians” is still wide open in Thailand. Table 2.1 summarizes the origins of major public administration legacies from five different masters.

Table 2.1 Origins of Public Administration Legacies from Different Masters

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

44 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

2.2.5.2 Traits of Governmental Culture Produced by the Five Masters

Table 2.2 summarizes the important traits of governmental culture that has accumulated over eight centuries. First, there is the culture of perceiving the King as the Leader of the country despite the fact that constitutional monarchy was established in 1932. During the present King Rama IX reign, prime ministers and cabinets may come and go, but the king remains the pillar of national unity. Second, the tradition of authoritarian rule, centralization, and big government acquired from the past has been with us to the present. This tradition of a centralized big government with a single authoritative figure has been a strong trait of Thai traditional governmental culture. The underlying assumption is that the entire government bureaucracy, central and local governments, should be under a single person such as the prime minister. Third, the traditions of the hierarchy and clientelism have been core features of the Thai bureaucracy and society from the past to the present.

Fourth, the reconciliation tradition has been much alive throughout modern Thai political history (1932 to present). Fifth, under absolute monarchy and military rule, bureaucratic elites were accepted as a powerful privileged group. Under elected politicians and big businessmen, bureaucratic elites still wield considerable clout in government, but their leading dominant role has been curtailed. Sixth, the practice of staging military coups was acceptable during absolute monarchy and military rule. Such practice became more and more unacceptable under elected politicians and big businessmen. Seventh, the tradition of the military’s strong loyalty to the king has been kept alive to the present day.

Table 2.2 Traits of Governmental Culture Produced by the Five Masters

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

History and Political Context of Public Administration in Thailand 45

Table 2.2 (continued) Traits of Governmental Culture Produced by the Five Masters

Note: Yes = supportive, No = not supportive. *Emerging legacies.

Eighth, the phenomenon of having elected politicians, especially from the provinces, as new bosses of bureaucrats is a recent one. Ninth, the tradition for the elected politicians to be seen by others as corrupted and bad is also another characteristic of the Thai governmental culture. Tenth, the use of government power to facilitate the businesses of big businessmen in power is unacceptable for the pro-democracy citizens. Lastly, the clash between governance

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC