Local governing bodies badly need reform

Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon recently sent up a trial balloon on the possibility of calling elections for local administration organisations before the general elections. His line of thought is that if the local elected bodies are in place before the national body, national politicians will not be able to manipulate local politicians during their poll campaign.

Local polls would reveal the strength of each politician’s canvassers and the influence of political parties in a constituency. The planning of subsequent elections can be based on the outcome.

At the same time, local elections can help release the pressure valve. If they are successful, local politicians will be happy and will cater to the needs of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) for their expenditure budget and political favours. If unsuccessful, especially if political conflicts reemerge and lead to violence, the current regime could repeat its rhetoric that the country is not ready for democracy. Either scenario puts the NCPO at an advantage.

Undeniably, this is all a political game. But it should not be so. Local elections form the basis of a sustainable democracy. There are a number of problems facing local elected bodies where reform is necessary.

Local governing bodies, from the tambon level up to the provincial level, are mostly dominated by local patrons and influential families with close ties to businesses and national politics. Many elected chiefs usually own construction firms or other businesses in the area.

Conflicts of interest and corruption are a norm. News of shootings due to unsettled local business interests and personal animosity makes headlines constantly.

To give them some credit, many of the new generations of local leaders who are sons or daughters of influential local politicians, have grown out of their parents’ ways of doing things. Many have been educated abroad and have brought back values conducive to democracy and professional management. They have answered their constituents’ demands, pushing through many beneficial projects and programmes. But they are still not the majority.

More importantly, there is a structural problem in our way of organising local governments. The Thai bureaucracy relies heavily on the Ministry of Interior in managing provincial and local governing bodies. They appoint provincial governors to control actions of elected and non-elected apparatus through laws, rules and regulations, and through the allocation of budget approved by the central government.

Even with the existence of elected local government executives, provincial governors still hold greater power and command over local government officials. As a result, the elected executives merely fight for local budgets in certain projects — roads, child care centres, and the like. They do not really run their localities.

Moreover, there are no functioning legislative bodies at the local levels. Even though local councils exist, such as the Bangkok or Pattaya City councils that pass city regulations, local legislation is shaped by the rules and regulations of the central government. A mechanism for checks and balances is lacking.

The central government maintains control over local government budget expenditure. True, the decentralisation law requires that certain portions of the budget be allocated to provincial and local administrative bodies. But decisions on the matter are made in Bangkok. Decentralisation and the political structure are tightly controlled by Bangkok. The majority of development programmes and projects are determined by ministries, not local governments.

Historically, during Thailand’s nation building era, from fighting the threat of Western colonisation through to the communist insurgency, central control by Bangkok was always deemed necessary. But the country’s political context has changed and embraced differences and diversification among the people. It may be time for a change.

A centralised government cannot look after every aspect of its citizens’ lives. There are many pressing matters that a local government can do better, from schooling to policing. A strong local government will also provide a mechanism for checks and balances to the central government. The national government should prioritise the use of its resources to address national interests and problems, rather than local ones, so that it can become more efficient and effective.

The separation of powers between the central government and local administrations must be reformed and restructured.

First of all, provincial governors must be elected, not appointed as they are now. Under the election system, they will have to answer first and foremost, of course, to their voters, and second to an elected provincial parliament or council. Then, they will work with the central government in support of projects that are beneficial to the nation or the regions and clusters of provinces such as in the construction of high-speed railways or super highways.

Any project that could have impact on the environment nationwide and other provinces must be carried out in accordance with national law. However, local governments must have total control over the implementation of the project.

Elected local councillors can pass local laws which are in line with national legislation, and within the bounds of the constitution. In this way, local voices will not be ignored.

These local administration bodies should retain at least half of the VAT and taxes collected from within their province for local funding. This will accelerate development in the provinces rather than allow local taxes to be amassed to build the skewed growth of Bangkok.

With less control from the central government and ministries, local governments, with local mechanisms of checks and balances, will be more transparent. Leaders from local administration organisations gather at Government House in May 2013, calling for an increase in their annual budget allocation. Meanwhile, public participation will be closer to home.

It is also time for the police force to be decentralised. The central government oversees national crime suppression units and the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), while local bodies supervise local police units.

At the same time, national politicians will mostly have to prove themselves at the local level in their constituencies before jumping into national politics. Therefore, local elections can be a screening process for qualified future national politicians.

For the people, multi-level elections provide a learning curve of the democratic process. They will also be able to hold politicians accountable for their actions and the bureaucracy they run. It will not be an overnight success, but in time the people will be able to elect a more responsible group of representatives at all levels.

The structural changes will be a gamechanger for the benefit of all Thais.

Suranand Vejjajiva was secretary-general to the prime minister during the Yingluck Shinawatra government and is now a political analyst.