Decentralization and Local Governance in Thailand 61

the election of provincial governors. They were now joined in this call by a third party, the SLP.19 The mass media and academics strongly supported this proposal and greatly heightened its importance. The May 1992 incident shifted the balance of power away from the military and bureaucrats, toward the elected politicians and reform pressure groups.

In response, the MOI mounted a counter-offensive to preserve its authority over the provinces.20 But this resistance proved futile in the pro-democracy atmosphere created by the May 1992 events. Media coverage caricatured the MOI position as defense of an old, out-dated, and undemocratic system. When several of the parties that campaigned for elective governors were subsequently inducted into the governing coalition, pressure to implement this reform increased.

3.4 Drafting the TAO Law 199421

Shortly after the elections in September 1992, the new coalition government headed by the DP set up a parliamentary committee to consider reform in local government. The main proposal circulating in public debate at the time was to introduce elections for the post of provincial governor. Less than two years later, the process that began in this way resulted in the Tambon Council and Tambon Administrative Organization Act 1994 (TAO Law). The proposal to make the governor elective had disappeared. The trend of decentralization reform took a new course that has continued to this day. How did this happen? What were the politics behind this major deflection in the course of decentralization?

The first reason is that MOI bureaucrats, whose priority was to block the proposal for elective governors at all costs, still played decisive roles in policy formulation at all levels. To deflect attention away from the issue of electing provincial governors, they introduced the idea of making reforms at the tambon level instead. As a first step, a parliamentary committee, in which the MOI bureaucrats had considerable influence, proposed that the TCs, which had been established in 1972 but never been assigned significant powers, be given the status of juristic persons as a first move toward devolving more power on such bodies.22

19It is noticeable that in the general election of 1986, there were more parties advocating for the election of the provincial governor, but they were small parties (i.e., Muan Chon Party, Ratsadorn Party, and Kao Na Party). See fundamental information on current political parties and Manut Wattanakomen (1986) Political Parties and Election 1979–1983, p. 57–82. However, in the election of September 1992, there were more major parties joining the fray, led by the DP (which gained 21.9% of the seats in the parliament), PDP (4.7%), and SLP (2.2%) (Internal Letter from the Policy Studies Institution, 5th ed., February 1993, p. 5–6 and the outcome of the members of Parliament election 1992 (Bangkok: Department of Administration, 1992).

20In general, permanent officials had to follow political policies, but they often came into confl ict with political groups over the provincial governor election matter. This is due to three reasons: (1) the coalition government parties had no agreed resolution and thus expressed disagreement among themselves, while the leading government party was not appointed interior minister; (2) a leader from the coalition government party running the Ministry of Interior disagreed with the elections; and (3) after studies were conducted by the government and the MOI on the elections, the prime minister, and interior minister were uncertain about organizing the elections, thus acting like MOI bureaucrats resistant to the idea.

21For more detailed studies in the process of promulgating the Tambon Council and Tambon Administrative Organization Act and the conservation of the act, see Trakun Meechai (1994: 142–160).

22The MOI order (No. 802/1992, dated October 28, 1992) granted “the Tambon Council (TC) legal entity status,” thereby revoking an earlier order of the Revolutionary Council Order Number 326 (RCO. 326 hereafter), which set up the TCs. Bangkok Post November 17, 1992, p. 1 and Matichon December 1, 1992, p. 11 and 22 identified this move as an attempt by the MOI to divert popular attention to decentralization at the tambon level instead of the provincial governor election.

©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

62 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

Many proponents of local government reform instantly recognized that this proposal was an attempt to smother the issue of elective governors, and voiced strong opposition. The Federation of Thai Students pointed out that two-thirds of the parliamentary committee came from the MOI and demanded that the composition be broadened.23 Politicians, such as Bunchu Rochanasatien, who supported the introduction of elective provincial governors, also criticized the government for not being sincere in implementing the decentralization policy and demanded that permanent officials be removed from the committee because they would only protect their own interests.24 In the face of these criticisms, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a new order25 to reconstitute the panel. However, the composition changed little except for the addition of a few academics. Later, when a government bill was drafted and submitted to the parliament, the MOI still retained influence on the process. Members of Parliament and senators who were themselves senior officials were able to pack the parliamentary committee to review the bill. MOI bureaucrats were involved in the policymaking process at various levels.

Politicians who had earlier favored the election of governors, especially those from the PDP, were now drawn into a debate about introducing reforms at the tambon level. The PDP proposed a new form of local administrative organization at the tambon level, separate from the TCs, and called it the “Tambon Administrative Organization.”26 The party began to pursue the idea aggressively, leading to frequent rifts inside the coalition government. Other coalition parties, such as the DP and even the NAP, accepted the PDP proposal on the grounds that it was in line with the government’s decentralization policy. The PDP and the NAP agreed that the issue should be sent back to the MOI for drafting into a new bill. That new bill eventually became the TAO law.

Not only did the political parties agree with decentralization to the tambon level by the establishment of TAOs, but the village and tambon heads, who were the lowest rung of the MOI hierarchy, also began to recognize that they would benefit from this reform.27 On the one hand, they too opposed making the governor elective, and so valued this proposal as a way to smother the issue of elective governors. On the other, they were aware that they would become the key vote canvassers in any form of election for local government. The political parties would need their services, and would have to reward them. They also believed that they could increase their authority and budget allocation from central government by playing the role of administrative mediators between Bangkok and their tambon or province. Although they had earlier opposed decentralization, the village and tambon heads now also became supporters of the TAO bill.

In this changing context, the headmen of tambons and villages and the senior MOI officials successfully forged alliances to negotiate and bargain with the political parties. The MOI pushed the proposal to make the TC into a legal entity, as it would benefit the headmen of tambons and villages. The headmen, in turn, hoped that if they joined the alliance, their budget and power

23Matichon, December 4, 1992, p. 10.

24Bangkok Post, December 4, 1992, p. 3: “Permanent officials should not draft bill.”

25Order 262/1992 (OR 262 hereafter) dated December 11, 1992.

26The PDP proposed such an idea when other coalition government parties demanded that the PDP end its support for the election of governors (Matichon, December 1, 1992, p. 1, 19, Matichon December 2, 1992, p. 1, 22, and Siam Rat December 2, 1992, p. 1, 16). The PDP was one of the coalition government parties that aggressively supported it, but was criticized by other coalition government parties especially the DP (Banyat Banthadthan, Chamni Sakdiset, and Suthat Ngoenmuen). Bangkok Post, November 17–18, 1992.

27The MOI had proposed a “Tambon Council” bill to the parliament on several occasions between 1981 and 1990. But on each occasion, the bill was not approved by the Senate, or the parliament was dissolved before approval was finalized. Therefore, when the MOI came under pressure from civil society groups and politicians over decentralization, it introduced this solution.

©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Decentralization and Local Governance in Thailand 63

would increase and their freedom to administer the tambons and villages would be strengthened.28 The political parties were obliged to listen to the headmen because they valued the headmen’s role as vote canvassers during elections.29 Senior MOI officials persuaded the interior minister, Gen. Chawalit Yongchaiyut, head of the NAP, to negotiate with other political parties to drop the proposal for elective provincial governors and concentrate on reform at the tambon level instead.30 This compromise would allow the political parties to show their supporters that they had indeed fulfilled their election promise to pursue decentralization, and would allow the MOI to claim that it was now open to decentralization.

By lending support to decentralization at the tambon level, the MOI bureaucrats and the village and tambon heads hoped to be in a position to influence the drafting of the law in ways that would protect their interests. Their key strategy was to install themselves in the new tambon-level structure, by giving the village and headmen ex o cio posts on the new TAO, and giving the governor and his subordinates in the provincial hierarchy roles in overseeing how the TAO operated. To achieve these key goals, this official coalition conceded some other reforms that the politicians wanted (e.g., greater opportunities for women in the MOI structure31). In return, some of the political parties, especially the NAP, lent their support to the MOI’s proposals for the TAO, and also supported the MOI in other ways. For example, when the reformers proposed amending the constitution (sections 198–199) to make all seats on local government bodies elective, the NAP and allied parties strongly opposed the move, and the proposal had to be dropped.32

In short, the majority of policy stakeholders—politicians, permanent government officials, headmen of tambon and villages, and academics who had previously supported the election of governors—were satisfied with the idea of drafting a TAO bill.

3.4.1 Competition for Political Benefits (or, on Stage at the Parliament)

There were enormous differences, however, over what exactly should be in such a piece of legislation. As competition between the political parties for public attention intensified, no fewer than eight different bills were submitted. Five parties in the coalition (DP, PDP, NAP, SAP, CTP) each submitted one draft bill, as did the opposition,33 while the Chart Phatthana Party (CPP) submitted two separate bills reflecting the intense competition among its members.

Although there were eight bills, the key confl ict was between the drafts submitted by the NAP and the DP. The confl ict was rooted in the differing electoral constituencies of the two parties. The NAP was a provincial party, based mostly in the northeast. At elections, it

28Bangkok Post, November 6, 1992, p. 1.

29Even though the truth is that no research has actually pointed out whether the capability of tambon and village headmen as vote canvassers for members of Parliament would have an effect on state-level elections.

30Interview with Aree Wongaraya, former permanent secretary of the Ministry of Interior, August 23, 2003 at his Lad Phrao residence.

31Even though there had been criticism from academics that such changes are not related to decentralization at all.

32An important reason that caused the instability in the government was the attempt to bring the Chart Phathana Party into the coalition government. The DP (the core political party of the coalition government at that time) and New Aspiration Party began to have differing opinions as a result. (See press release on New Aspiration Party withdrawal from the coalition government party cited in Phornsak Phongpheaw (2001: 319–321).)

33For details of the differences in each of the eight bills proposed to the House of Representatives, see Trakun Michai (1994: 131–141). For details on the process of proposing the Tambon Council and Tambon Administrative Organization Act and the consideration of the stated act, see Trakun Michai (1994: 142–160).

©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

64 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

depended on local politicians to act as its vote canvassers. It gave support to decentralization because this demand was attractive to local politicians. But the party was also aware that some of the most important local canvassers were the headmen of villages and tambons, and that local officials of the MOI at the provincial and district level also had important influence. Thus, the NAP favored a gradual decentralization under which local headmen and MOI officials would continue to have considerable ex o cio power in local government, and hence the ability to aid the NAP at elections. The DP, on the other hand, drew a major part of its support from Bangkok. The party wanted to satisfy its supporters, including the new generations of academics, thinkers, and intellectuals who wanted to see immediate results from decentralization, and hence the DP supported a fully elective TAO. All parties were united, however, in the belief that the confl icts between the various bill drafts should be resolved in Parliament. Even so, the confl ict was also played out in wider public debate. The DP went public with the claim that the MOI had had undue influence on the drafting of the reform proposals, and called for some compromise between official interests and the proposals made by political parties.

Once the bills entered the legislature, the coalition between MOI officials and headmen of tambons and villages, which had come together to oppose elective governors and substitute reform at the tambon level, began to unravel.34 MOI officials proposed that the MOI should initially control the TAO while election rules and other infrastructure were being established, but the association of tambon and village headmen wanted the new bodies to be independent of the MOI from the start. The association submitted its proposal to the Standing Committee of the House of Representatives, supported by many civic organizations and pressure groups like the Confederation for Democracy, Association of People’s Right and Freedom, and Federation of Thai Students.35 The coalition was being pulled apart by the efforts of different interests to preserve their specific benefits. This became clearer when the House of Representatives held open-door hearings to listen to proposals from various groups and civic organizations.

However, when it came to major decisions relating to the bills, these pressure groups and civic organizations had no influence on the parliament; they were ignored and did not receive attention even at the Standing Committee of House Representatives or the Standing Committee attached to the Senate in charge of considering the draft bill.36 Politicians and permanent government officials pushed their own sectarian proposals, and ignored the opinions of these “pressure groups,”

34This coalition was based on an expectation that the headmen would retain ex o cio control over the TC and TAO, and the MOI would continue to have oversight power, under the pretext that the local people were not yet ready for self-government.

35Phong Sudthiparinyanon, chairman of the Independent Campaign for Tambon Councils as Legal Entity, Pracha Chartwongwan, chairman of the Northeastern Heads of Tambon and Village Association, Phrom Pangma, chairman of the Srisaket Heads of Tambon and Village Association, and Kamon Katiaunwat, chairman of Vaeng-noi, Khon Kaen Association, expressed their resistance to the version drafted by the MOI. For details see Siam Rath, May 31, 1993, p. 16, and Siam Rath, June 28, 1993, p. 1, 3.

36The 42 members of the Standing Committee attached to the House of Representatives included 8 government representatives, and members of Parliament proposed by various political parties in ratio to their seats in the parliament, namely, the Democrat Party and Chart Thai Party 7 each, Chart Pattana (6), Palang Dharma (4), Social Action Party (3), and Seri Dharma and Solidarity Party (1 each). The Thai Citizen Party, Mass Party, and Rassadorn Party had no representatives. The 27 members of the Standing Committee attached to the Senate included 8 experienced members who had formerly been attached to the House of Representatives, and 19 members who were permanent officials in the MOI, high-ranking officials in local administrative organizations and other permanent officials. This is a summary made from the records of the proceedings of the meeting. (I owe special thanks to Wasana Yangsuk and Tisa, officials of the Report Group, Meeting Division, Office of the General-Secretary of the Senate, for providing me with all 35 records of the meeting.)

©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC