Assistant Professor Viengrat Netipo, political science lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, is regarded as a veteran researcher on local politics. Recently, she has conducted field research on "Decentralization and its effects on local power structures". Her target is the North and Northeast regions, since this is where the local power structure has clearly been developing and changing rapidly in recent times.

 

‘Prachatai' has visited the research area and interviewed Asst. Prof. Viengrat regarding her project, ‘Decentralization and local politics...who does the power and benefits go to?'.

 

1

The turning point of local politics is "decentralization".

This restructuring of the state is a big change

since power in the Thai state

will change from centralized to decentralized,

which is a large transformation in the legitimacy of power.

 

2

Local politics before decentralization

was the politics of villagers in relation to the state in a kind of play-acting.

This means that there are actors

but the deeds of these actors had no effect

in making the lives of the people any better.

 

3

Therefore it is not odd that the politics that the villagers see as relevant

relate solely to elections and especially election campaigns.

 

4

The "Thaksin system" was the beginning where a systematic network was established.

Thaksin could do this because he understood local Thai politics thoroughly.

Therefore he could establish strong and systematic local political power.

 

5

The role of local influential persons is not as easy as in the past.

They have to do more for the villagers, or they will not be elected. They cannot ask for the help of local government officials like before.

They have to ask for help from political parties,

so that they will have secure policies, budgets, and other rules.

 

6

Local politics after the Thaksin system changed from play-acting politics

to a form of politics with benefits that are clearer and more concrete.

It means that politics, state power, policies, laws and regulations have

become closer to the villagers.

 

7

Mr. Samak may be "the Last Samurai" of the old power structure

which is still in the imagination of the villagers, which overlaps with the interests in the new politics.

The major change is not up to Mr. Samak,

but lies in the changes in the old power structure.

 

8

Democracy in the electoral process is all about benefits.

 

9

The development of local democracy is most important.

It is just about the only alternative for real politics "for the people"

in the current Thai political situation.

 

10

What can we do so that the villagers or civil society can become the main power in local politics?

When they become the main power, they will play a key role in local politics.

Being the major players does not necessarily mean being administrators

But they can hold people to account, propose policies, and press for change.

 

 

 

000

 

 

 

 

Asst. Prof. Viengrat Netipo

Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University

 

 

Can you explain the background of the research project on decentralization and its effect of local political power, which you are working on?

 

You could call this research project on local politics as my lifetime research since I have been interested in local politics and its transformation for a very long time. The main purpose is not about local politics itself; it is also related to the explanation of national politics through local governance, decentralization, and its effects on local power structures.

 

Local politics in this context means politics within the framework of elections and politics outside the election framework. It is related to both national and local politicians. However, the focus is on local politics happening in particular areas. In this research, one particular area is used as a research site.

 

Thai politics can be understood from different angles. I choose to see it from the local perspective since I believe that this is the political level that is closest to the people as it is everyday politics. It is related to electoral politics and politics beyond elections. It is also related to formal and informal politics, as well as politics in urban and rural areas.

 

Does the main focus of the research highlight local politics only?

The research that I have been working on this past few years is the study of local political changes over the past 10 years. The main characteristic is that the decentralization process has completely transformed local political structures. This decentralization, for me, is a major change in the structure of the Thai state.

 

In the last year of research work in 2007, I got support from the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University. The study focused on one province in the Northeast (For more information on this research see Bangkok Post and Krungthep Turakij newspapers).

 

The current research that I am working on is trying to analyse how decentralization has affected the power structure in local politics. This project is funded by the Office of the National Research Commission, through Chulalongkorn University.

 

Another project is to measure the level of local democracy. It is a small project under the Thai Democracy Watch Project (TDW) which is under Chulalongkorn's Faculty of Political Science.

 

The main questions being asked is how the structure of local politics has changed, and how the changes have affected the development of Thai democracy.

 

 

Can you analyse local politics before the influence of the Thaksin system?

 

The question presupposes that the Thaksin system is the centre for explaining the universe. The Thaksin system is not the place I would use to start the explanation, but it can be used due to the time condition.

 

The turning point of local politics is decentralization. This restructuring of the state is a big change in that the power of the Thai state will shift from centralization to decentralization, which is a large transformation in the legitimacy of power.

 

Since we are discussing this issue, we need to continue monitoring to see where the source of the legitimacy of the power of the Thai state is. If there are changes, it will be an indicator of where the new legitimate source will be in the future.

 

Another aspect is that decentralization limits the power of the local bureaucratic system tremendously. The most important point of decentralization is that it creates widespread grassroots politics across the country. Although limited to the democratic structure, local elections have brought major political changes at the local level.

 

Politics before and after decentralization is totally different. This is the effect of the 1997 constitution, which is the same constitution that paved the way for the strengthening of the Thai Rak Thai party. This would later be known as the Thaksin system.

 

To answer that what local politics was like before decentralization, it was a motionless politics. The status was a centralised state without effectiveness. All in all, the state had limited access to the grassroots population. The relation that the state had with the people in terms of political benefits was also very little, since the state did not provide many services to the people. The state only appeared after a project had been decided. This was when state projects clashed over the natural resources of the local people, which led to problems for the people and led to conflicts between the state and the people.

 

The villagers had been marginalised and pushed away from politics, state power, and government policies. Villagers were affected by agricultural prices or migration policies which were not decided in their interests.

 

The only thing that related directly and immediately to the villagers was when they go to the general election. Therefore it is not a strange thing that the politics relevant to the people is electoral politics and only during the campaign period. Bangkokians usually condemn villagers for selling their votes. Would it not be better for them to sell their vote if their voting rights cannot make their lives better?

 

Local politics before decentralization was a politics where the villagers related to state power in a kind of theatre. This means that there are players, but the actions of these players are not related to the betterment of their lives. There are images and dreams where the villagers can link to the players. An example of a dream is that their friends are inside the state power through elections. Playhouse politics gives a special role to the playhouse managers. They would be the middle person between the villagers and state power. The managers in real life are the networks of influential persons that interact with the villagers on a daily basis. The villagers then feel that they have people they can rely on.

 

This politics is politics where influential persons or local mafias work as the middle person between centralised state power and the villagers. This politics is when the politicians, bureaucrats, and businesses get the most benefit in a mutually reinforcing way. The villagers will be the mass supporters, but they would not receive anything substantial, apart from the money that would be used during election campaigns. Ajarn Kasian Techapeera analysed my research regarding politics before decentralisation clearly.

(See http://www.nidambe11.net/ekonomiz/2003q4/article2003dec26p4.htm)

 

 

How did Thaksin system break down the old power system and establish a new power structure in local politics?

 

I used to dislike this term (Thaksin system) and did not think that it meant anything. I came to understand the Thaksin system for the first time after my field research. The Thaksin system was the beginning of a systematic network. Thaksin could do this because he understood local Thai politics thoroughly. Therefore he could establish strong and systematic local political power.

 

This strong system could not have happened without decentralisation. It is as if the Thaksin system had hijacked the decentralisation process for its own benefit, although this could be seen as giving credit to Thai Rak Thai and ignoring other social forces.

 

I think that decentralisation is the change in building the new structure and also the transitional period. When the power of administration and governance (with tremendous funds) comes to the local level, when this happens, all powerful local groups started to compete more for their share. Since these powerful groups had been functioning as networks of influential persons for a long time, they transformed themselves and became involved in local elections and are taking posts at different levels of local administrative organizations.

 

Therefore, the role of local influential persons is not as easy as in the past. They have to do more for the villagers, or they will not be elected. They cannot ask for the help of local government officials like before. They have to ask for help from political parties, so that they will have secure policies, budgets, and other rules. The political party that they went to was the Thai Rak Thai party.

 

Looking from the perspective of the Thai Rak Thai party, to strengthen the party at the grassroots level, they have had to approach the network of influential persons as well.

 

The relations between influential persons, the Thai Rak Thai party, and the villagers then were no longer the same. This is what disintegration of the old power and establishment of the new power means.

 

Through this old power disintegration, the powers of local bureaucrats decreased while local administrative organizations had more power. The relations between influential persons and the bureaucrats had to change. Local politicians that failed to approach the Thai Rak Thai party or were ignored by Thai Rak Thai were eventually weakened. At the same time, the bargaining power of the villagers increased through the electoral system. Local leaders who could enter the election and offer alternatives to the villagers would have a more important role.

 

What we call the Thaksin system, which became a national phenomenon, had its roots in the North and Northeast. The network of the new power which entered local administrative organizations was stable and became an important base through funding and monetary support from the party. The local administrative system systematically and clearly became the main support for Thai Rak Thai.

 

Local politics after the Thaksin system changed from play-acting politics to politics with benefits that are more clear and concrete. It means that politics, state power, policies, laws and regulations have become closer to the villagers. Play-acting politics collapsed and was transformed into a more concrete politics through the democratic electoral system.

 

Under this phenomenon, the elite in the rural areas got benefits from the state budget through local administrative organizations. A small political elite flourished around the country. Ordinary villagers could get a political share if they could be involved in the local administrative organization. The benefits were physically divided among their cousins and siblings. In election campaigns, ordinary villagers would base their voting on whether the local candidate for the local administrative organization would build better roads, water systems, or would support local job training. They would use these qualifications as bargaining tools whether to support a candidate or not.

 

This does not include the populist policies of Thai Rak Thai that made politics more concrete. It had become more stable and systematic.

 

 

After the 19 September coup d'état and the government appointed by the military dictators, how has local politics changed?

 

The result of the massive victory of the People Power Party (PPP) shows that local politics that offers edible democracy is stable. The previous military-appointed government could not change much. What can you propose to replace local politics with clear benefits for the villagers?

 

The cause of the coup d'état in general terms was an attempt to bring the power of the bureaucracy back to where it was after it was lost under the Thaksin system. It was reflected ar the local as well as in the national level.

 

I recently had discussions with some local leaders. We can clearly see that in the regions there have been attempts by the military and bureaucrats to adapt themselves to counter the power of the Thai Rak Thai leaders. There are different tactics such as harassment, using ideological debates, and using villager networks to counter the power. But all they could do was make the conflict clearer, but not bring stability. Local politics has improved into a politics where concrete benefits are clear.

 

To clarify, democracy under the electoral process is simply about interests. The word interest is not limited to a negative connotation. We need to use democracy in the struggle for interests. The question is what interests will reach the villagers.

 

 

So presently, how do you see the politics under Prime Minister Samak? In which direction is local politics headed?

 

It is very sad to talk about Mr. Samak. I wanted to weep after listening to his interview regarding the Takbai incident and the 6 October 1976 massacre. We can see that the only political ideology in Thai society that the state has supported is royalist right-wing extremism.

 

I agree with Supalak Ganjanakhundee's article published in Northern Citizen magazine during 11-17 February 2008 (See People's Alliance for coup D'état (PAD) proudly presents Thailand's 25^th PM: Samak Sundaravej) that Mr. Samak is the outcome of the anti-Thaksin movement under the "People's Alliance for coup D'état". It means that Thai society does not have any alternative to fight the Thaksin system other than a royalist right wing approach to counter Thaksin. Since Thai society does not have any other alternative, we have to accept this.

 

Since Mr. Samak believes in this ideology, there is a possibility that the local elite active in his approach might come back to power. But I do not believe that they will be able to replace the concrete politics group where politics with interest is.

 

Mr. Samak may be "the Last Samurai" of the old power structure which is still in the imagination of the villagers, which overlaps with the interests in the new politics. The major change is not up to Mr. Samak, but lies in the changes in the old power structure. During this period, it is time to joining interests. This however will not have any effect at the structural level of society.

 

Thailand has many sad stories. We need to be strong on this.

 

 

How do you analyse the mafia system and the state mafia (under the guise of government officials) who usually acts as patrons to the villagers?

 

If you are referring to the bureaucrats that like to use power like a mafia, I think it is obsolete. It is unacceptable to have a bureaucracy that does not reflect the needs of the people. Bureaucrats that have established themselves as a mafia should all be under investigation. I will not go into detail regarding corruption within the bureaucracy.

 

However, the new phenomenon is politicians serving in local administrative organizations and at the same time acting as a mafia or influential persons. This is an improvement in my perspective. In the past we used to have mafias in each region, which had bureaucrats working with them. Now we have mafias in every sub-district. This is genuine decentralization.

 

This is the period of transition to democratic development. Democracy is about interests. It is obvious that powerful groups with interests will use democratic structures to ensure their benefits.

 

 

How do you see the importance of local politics? How can we make the structure of local politics benefit villagers and their communities? How can we make local politics independent from the evil cycle of influential persons, politicians, and the government sector?

 

This is the most important issue. The villagers lie at the centre of the question. I will have to say that development of local democracy is most important. It is the only solution to politics for the people in the current Thai political situation.

 

The solution is that the new space and new democratic structures have to be inclusive. Ideologically, it should be that anyone should be able to access the power structure. In practice, it is monopolised by the elite. Most of the time, the elite are local businesspeople. Mafias and local influential persons represent monopolies of interests because they are the major power holders in local areas. The issue is what we can do so that villagers or civic groups can be the leading power in their area. If they can be in power, then they can play a bigger role in local politics.

 

Being the major players does not necessarily mean being administrators. But they can hold people to account, propose policies, and press for change.

 

According to the law, there are approaches like this. But how can we know their rights and utilise them to make them truly beneficial to the communities? This is not to look down on the people. To be frank, local politics is portrayed as something dirty and repulsive. They are seen as being as bad as the bureaucracy. We should not fall into the same trap.

 

I am not brave enough to give recommendations since I am not a political actorsor political scientist that enjoys giving answers to society.

 

 

If you had to propose a solution for decentralization, what would you say?

 

I want the political actors to see through this hole and to understand thoroughly what the views of business are and make use of them. Then we will be able to see what the structures are that need to be redesigned and improved.

 

Do not let a few groups gain power and benefits easily simply by criticising local administrative organisations, while the bureaucracy still has channels to manipulate them.

 

We have to be able to think it through like the Thaksin system. We are not using these interests for a political party or a certain group. If we can think it through properly we will see that we can make local administrative organizations into something that can serve the people. We just need to think it through.

 

 

Translated by Pokpong Lawansiri