Story by Pratchaya Chaikaew
Cover illustration by Kittiya On-in

The election of Bangkok’s Governor sparked nationwide calls for elections of provincial governors, but academics argue that there is a more effective path to advancing democracy.

Calls for Change

Chiang Mai Governor Election Campaign Network held a mock election for Chiang Mai governor alongside the Bangkok governor election on 22 May 2022 (Photo by Wanna Taemthong)

On 22 May 2022, there was a long-delayed gubernatorial election in Bangkok, won by Chadchart Sittipunt. The military's grip on the country was waning, giving way to democratic openings. People were filled with hope.

People in the provinces were understandably envious. Provincial governors are appointed in Bangkok, not elected by local voters. They want to elect their own governors too. Thus, a campaign emerged calling for change.

However, the calls for the election of provincial governors are based on misconceptions, according to academics who have studied the issue in depth.

Instead of electing provincial governors, they argue that a more effective path is transferring more power from the capital to the Local Administrative Organizations (LAOs), which already exist and are elected. Budget reform is also required to provide more support to smaller provinces.

Misconceptions

Yodpol Thepsitthar (Photo by Pratchaya Chaikaew)

The term 'governor' can be misleading. The governor of Bangkok and the provincial governors are entirely different entities, according to Asst Prof Yodpol Thepsitthar, an expert in administrative law from Naresuan University.

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration is a special autonomous region, similar to Pattaya. Under a decentralization initiative emerging in the late 1980s, the Governor of Bangkok has more autonomy, even though their power and budget are still quite limited.

On the other hand, provincial governors are delegates appointed by the Ministry of Interior to enforce the law in the provinces as civil servants. As part of the bureaucracy, they are not usually affected by political uncertainties, unlike elected politicians. This makes them resistant to change.

There are occasional reports that they resist politicians’ orders. Conservatives who distrust democratic systems tend to side with provincial governors against elected politicians, paving the way for authoritarian governance.

Provincial governors may seem very powerful. However, their power is largely borrowed. Their authority comes from various pieces of legislation enacted in the capital. They mostly act on behalf of the ministers and directors of government departments.

They are often reported in the news during crises in their jurisdictions, such as air pollution hazards or floods. They may appear formidable in meetings, but in reality, they simply carry out the directives of higher-ups who actually hold the power.

Therefore, electing provincial governors wouldn’t make much of a difference. Even if they were elected, they would still be constrained by laws to act as political delegates, not representatives of the voters. As part of the central government, they don’t have autonomy of their own.

Electing them would only create the illusion of local empowerment without addressing the real issues that limit their authority. A more meaningful decentralization, and greater democracy requires us to think in a different direction.

Unfinished Business

In fact, the Governor of Bangkok is much more similar to the Presidents of Local Administrative Organizations (LAOs). As part of the decentralization initiative, these positions are already elected. With people becoming more politically active, there is growing enthusiasm for electing these officials.

Instead of electing provincial governors, it would be far more effective to empower the existing LAOs. However, this would require addressing unfinished business.

When democracy flourished in Thailand during the 1990s, there was a promise of genuine power transfer. However, due to political uncertainties and military coups, the process has experienced setbacks over the past 25 years.

Despite the 1999 Act on Determining Plans and Process for Decentralization to Local Administrative Organizations and the ongoing efforts of the Decentralization Committee, the power transfer has not reached even half of what was originally envisioned.

As a result of this political stagnation, local governance today is entangled in overlapping responsibilities and duplication between the central government’s bureaucracy and the LAOs, much like a bonsai tree.

Yodpol argues that for genuine decentralization to take place, ministries, bureaus, and departments must be willing to relinquish some of their power. "Otherwise, the regional bureaucracy will be like an irritable old person who keeps complaining about having too much work but refuses to delegate tasks or authority to anyone else."

This means looking to examples like Italy, Spain, and France, which have regional administration systems similar to Thailand’s. In these countries, political delegates from the central government play much more limited roles, such as managing foreign labour registration.

More resources and responsibilities should be transferred to local administrations to take on new roles. The LAOs should be the main actors in local governance, while provincial governors and their bureaucracies transition into a more supportive function.

Budget reform

In addition to the transfer of power, sensible budgeting is also required.

Currently, 35% of the central government’s revenue goes to local administrations. In addition, local administrations collect their own revenue from local taxes, while provincial governors and their bureaucracies receive additional budgets from the central government.

"Localities that can collect more taxes will thrive, while those that can collect less tax will remain as they are, and I believe this kind of budget allocation needs to change," said Yodpol.

Yodpol proposes that large cities with high tax revenue should receive less budget support from the central government. Instead, more funds should be allocated to support smaller cities, helping them develop their localities and economies until they become self-sufficient.

Meanwhile, the central government and its political delegates should implement development projects efficiently to prepare for transferring powers and responsibilities to local administrations.

While the idea of electing provincial governors may seem appealing as a step towards decentralization, it does not address the fundamental issues of power distribution and governance structure in Thailand.

Genuine progress requires a focus on empowering existing Local Administrative Organizations (LAOs), addressing the unfinished business of decentralization, and ensuring sensible budgeting practices.