Decentralisation in Thailand is a political decentralisation in Thailand since the 1990s, caused by the democratic movement. The Thai Constitution of 1997 and the Decentralisation Law of 1999 started an official reform process, but from 2001 to 2010, both the Thaksin governments and the military junta tried to re-centralization the bureaucratic system under the CEO-style management and military sanctions. In the 2014 coup, a reform process had been frozen from the military-dominated politics.
History Around the 5th to 15th century before the centralization period, Siam was the state of Mandala, a model for describing the patterns of diffuse political power distributed among Mueang or Kedatuan (principalities) in the early Southeast Asian history. One factor was the tributary state system, a protection from invasion by other powers.
Centralization In the 1880s, freed from the Front Palace and Chinese rebellions, King Rama V initiated modernization and centralization reforms. He established the Royal Military Academy in 1887 to train officers in Western fashion. His upgraded forces provided the king much more power to centralize the country. Other reason is to survive the European colonisation of Southeast Asia since the 16th century, by boosting the power to govern the territory and population.
From 1893 to 1915, King Rama V created the Monthon Thesapiban system, second-level administrative units called monthons, to centralize the core inner areas first. It took five years to centralize inner provinces that stay close to Bangkok.
It also took nineteen years to centralize outer provinces, and twenty-one years for the tributary states. The Thesapiban system propagated central policies from Bangkok and to develop a bureaucratic system in the region.Bunnag 1977 cited in Investments substantially distributed to inner monthons first, causing uneven long-run development across provinces. That created uneven development between Bangkok and other provinces of Siam, even the Thesapiban system was disbanded by the 1930s. The monthon structure still had been influenced to public infrastructure until early twentieth century.
Central government agents Administrative area and chief executives King Rama V divided provinces into 18 regions.Damrong Rajanubhab, 1966; Wales 1934, 107–34; Bunnag 1977; Noranittipadungkarn 1984 cited in There were subdivisions of the regions called Provinces (),At the period of King Rama V, Provinces were called Cities (). Changing from Cities to Provinces in 1916. Districts (), Subdistricts (), and Villages (). Chief executives of these areas are Provincial Governors (), Chief District Officers (), Subdistrict Heads (), and Village Heads () respectively.
Regional Administration There were two groups of local agents, fully working under the Ministry of Interior (MoI), to assist the MoI and the government ministries' tasks. Firstly, the central government's Regional Administration (RA, ) that was controlled through bureaucratic Provincial Governors (PGs) and Chief District Officers (CDOs). This caused PGs unable to collect tax freely any further under a supervisor by the RA. Secondly, in 1897, the king also created the Sanitary Districts (SDs, sukhaphiban, ) as the first era of decentralization in Thailand, but it was repealed after the king death in 1910.Amorn Raksasat, 1995: 18–21 cited in It was the system which Subdistrict Heads (), elected from Village Heads, and Village Heads, popularly elected within Villages. Both are serving as quasi-agents of the central government but they do not replace each other. The RA links together and produce overlap authority.
The Local Government Act of 1914 enacted to form the foundation of Thai modern local administration which is the form of deconcentration. Clientelism and hierarchy system incorporated highly in the centralized system such as the Sakdina system and the Bearers () and the Command Manpower (). The Command Manpower were mostly farmers that cultivated resources for the central government through a command by the Bearers. This structure is still very conscious in modern Thai society, running counter to transparency government concept.
Bureaucratic polity after 1932 Provincial Councils and Municipalities The Siamese revolution of 1932 created the Administrative Law of 1933 with the new three-tier structure, central government, provincial administrations, and local levels. Provincial Councils () were set up to do consultative tasks at the provincial level. Municipalities () were also created, at the time, as local level area with delegation tasks and no autonomy with the status of juristic person. Municipalities were set up by popularly elected mayor and councils, but the scope was limited to just garbage disposal, water work, slaughterhouses, crematoria and cemeteries, markets, piers, and ferries only, with an insufficient budget for only these activities.
In 1935, after the end of King Rama VII reign, Thailand became bureaucratic polity ().Riggs (1966) cited in
Phibun period In 1952, Phibun recreated decentralisation in the form of Sanitary Districts (SDs), including Subdistricts and Villages that were abolished in the 1910s. SDs were governed by a council that led by the CDO. Under SDs were elected body of Sub Districts and Villages.Amorn Raksasat, 1995: 18–21 cited in Later, SDs were changed to Subdistrict Municipalities (SMs, ) in 1999.
In 1955, Phibun promoted Provincial Councils to be the Provincial Administrative Organizations (PAOs; ), adding the executive into Provincial Councils, in which councils were elected by province's population, but the PAO Chief Executives (PCEs; ) were appointed by Provincial Governors.
In 1956, Phibun created the Subdistrict Administrative Organizations (SAOs; ) and the Subdistrict Councils (SCs; ).Amorn Raksasat, 1995: 18–21 cited in
Cold war period In 1965, the big central government's bureaucrats increased to 250,000 from 75,000 in 1944.
In the 1970s, the Thai Parliament (TP) introduced Subdistrict funds with the decision comes from the TP members.
In 1975 and 1978, Sanya Dharmasakti and Kriangsak Chamanan established the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and Pattaya City respectively as special local administrations.
In 1976, Kraisorn Tantiphong, member of Parliament from Chiang Mai proposed that Provincial Governors must be popularly elected but it was rejected by Seni Pramoj government as there was no support from the parliament, media or public society.
Causes Politics in Thailand before the 1991 coup was the situation of money politics and widespread corruption. It results in the first study of political reform in December 1991, the Study of the Thai Constitution Project of the Institute of Policy Studies, catching a lot of attention from public.Michael Kelly Connors (1999) cited in
The Black May in 1992, massive protests were cracked down by armed militaries and polices. It ended in the victory of pro-democracy groups that led to adoption of decentralization, supporting by democracy movement. Policy to make local administrations stronger was incorporated in the 7th National Economic and Social Development Plan of 1991 to 1996 and the 8th National Plan of 1997 to 2001.Suwanmala and Weist cited in
Reform Decentralization in Thailand was firstly promoted by neo liberal economists, policy practitioners of international development agencies, and non-governmental organizations. Liberal elites cited these problems as lack of accountability of politicians, but NGOs called to focus more on decentralisation. Decentralisation was not supported by the bureaucrats and the senior officers of the Ministry of Interior, claimed that it challenged the unitary state principle. They feared that it will develop into autonomous state then turn into republic, which will remove the revered Monarchy of Thailand.Krungthep Thurakit (1997) cited in
1994 SAO Law Chuan government in 1992 rejected the proposal for election of Provincial Governor, even though he formed the Decentralization Committee (DC) in the same year. Nevertheless, it was considered as first time in the history of Thailand, aiming to increase efficiency and power of local administratives.Mutebi, Recentralising while decentralising, p.41; Nagai, Decentralization in Thailand, p.43 cited in NGOs criticized that two-thirds of DC's committees came from the Ministry of Interior.
The proposal to make Provincial Governor elective was blocked by the influential MoI bureaucrats, to deflect attention away from it, in 1994, the Subdistrict Council and Subdistrict Administrative Organisation Law (SAO Law) was enacted instead. SCs with a revenue more than 150,000 baht for three consecutive fiscal years would be upgraded to SAOs. Subdistricts, central government's agents, also gained more autonomy level.Nagai, Funatsu and Kagoya 2008, pp. 2-3 cited in Subdistrict Heads and Village Heads were included in the new SAOs' system as a result of compromise process.
1997 constitution The 1997 constitution is the first constitution to promote decentralisation and local autonomy, reducing the power of the Ministry of Interior. Section 78 specified decentralisation as one of the most important state policies. Section 282 defines that central government must provide local administrative autonomy. Section 285 entrusted popularly elected local councils and executives, but in other way, local executives can be selected through local councils, until the end of 2003, executives must be popularly elected. It was to abolish the leader duty of Provincial Governors in PAOs and to prohibit both Subdistrict Heads and Village Heads to be elected in SAOs.
Elected structures were established in municipalities, SAOs, and PAOs that are backed by a financial transfer from the central government. In reality, these local elected structures, called Local Administrative Organizations (LAOs) () were not realized as local governments or having their own autonomy. Arghiros mentions that LAOs, especially PAOs, were more like colonies of the central government to ensure effective central power over rural areas.Arghiros (2002) cited in
PAOs' duties are formulating provincial development plans, supporting other administratives in the province, allocating grant, and cooperating with them. SAOs duties are enacting law and order, maintaining irrigation and transportation, managing waste and water, taking care of public health, and providing some welfare services. City Municipalities' duties are enacting law and order, planning irrigation and transportation, managing waste and water, taking care of public health, and providing some welfare services and firefighting.Krueathep 2004 cited in
PAO structure The Provincial Administrative Organization Law enacted in 1997, amended in 1999, the PAOs is separated into legislative and executive branches, as PAO councils are directly elected for four-year terms. PAO councilors are limit to the local population, 24 members for less than 500,000 people, 30 members for between 1 million to 1.5 million people, 36 members between 1.5 million to 2 million people, and 42 members for more than 2 million people. Chief Executive of PAOs also elected.
SAO structure The SAO councils are directly elected from Village, two members from each Village are required. There is minimum of three members, if it is two Villages, and minimum of six members, if it is one Village. The heads of the executive are also directly elected.
1999 Decentralisation Plan and Procedure Act National Decentralisation Committee (NDC)