POLITICS
Will decentralisation fuel the fires of graft?
This perception continues to form the debate over Thailand's process of decentralisation by giving more local governments bodies like tambon administration organisations (TAOs) more of a say when most of the people upcountry are not well educated like those in the capital and big cities.
But in reality, rural people continue to make the case for having their voices properly heard. For instance, a villager in Ubon Ratchathani said: "We want to choose who can represent and protect our interests". Others complained that, "MPs do not normally have time for us," or stated that: "Local elections can at least reassure us that we can get people who understand our problems".
These voices from the so-called uneducated demographic reveal how democracy is understood at the local level. Perhaps their perceptions can help all of us better understand why decentralisation is so important for the future of the emerging Thai democracy.
It is now 18 years since the TAO process of decentralisation was initiated, and it began with the notion that people would have the opportunity to select whoever they believed would best represent their interests at the local level. Almost two decades later, local administration is supposed to flourish to serve what the locals want. But that goal has not been accomplished partly because of the ineffectiveness of local administrations that are plagued with corruption.
This has led to attempts by many governments to delay delegating their authority to local administrations. But that might not be the real reason for any such arguments.
Of course, the problem of corruption is still apparently endemic to Thailand, and many of us from across the country know this from personal experience. This problem continues to focus overwhelmingly on the political centre of Bangkok, where most of the key decisions involving politics, financing and commercial contracts are made. Notably, there is a problem of transparency within many key government agencies from the interior to defence and education ministries.
What makes corruption a serious problem is lax law enforcement in Thailand. Singapore has shown that its handling of graft through the strict enforcement of the law can solve the problem. Therefore, the corruption of some local administration organisations should not be used to derail the promotion of democracy in Thailand.
In this imperfect world, if we are serious about making the necessary changes, it is only realistic to expect that in challenging the status quo, mistakes will inevitably be made.
By pushing ahead with the much needed process of decentralisation, this will unfortunately create new opportunities for graft to take root. Yet, corruption at the local level still makes up only a fraction of the overall problem. Why then is there a link being made between the potential for even greater corruption, and the broad process of decentralisation of power?
There is already plenty of evidence to demonstrate that rural people do not want corruption at their local level to persist. After all, they, more than most, are affected by graft when it means the difference between basic utilities or none at all, and when they continue to lack the services now taken for granted by the majority of Thais.
These questions are critically important for subsistence populations in rural areas, suffering from disproportionate resource allocation due to graft, and the conflicts of interest involving local power-brokers. The issues relating to the impact of corruption are clearly apparent for rural communities. And although they sincerely want to tackle the problem of graft, they are not equipped with the power to do so alone.
Out of his frustration, a villager who calls himself Dam at Ban Tadob in Si Sa Ket complained: "I want more lights along the path to my rice field so that I can work and earn a living. The TAO representatives only used the money to improve the roads leading to their houses. I have complained again and again, but nothing happens."
Another villager in Ubon Ratchathani said: "My TAO only wants to spend the budget on building roads and other infrastructure, because it is easy to be corrupt. We cannot check. Since we are not engineers, we don't know about the quality of the road. Reading the information about the budget on the green board in the village doesn't help that much. We want to know more about the way they allocate the [TAO] budget."
Tanet Charoenmuang, an academic from Chiang Mai University who supports decentralisation, commented: "Government officials cannot keep saying that the people are not yet ready for decentralisation. The government and opponents argue that the locals will suffer from more corruption, since decentralisation will make corruption easier. However, this is just an excuse to resist decentralising power away from Bangkok.
"Of course, once we start to decentralise, there will be problems. But the system will evolve and correct itself. Local people will have an opportunity to learn. We have to make a start, otherwise it will never happen."
Overall, the concept of decentralisation will remain as a vague principle, and will not help to promote our democracy if it is not fully applied in practice. Its application requires that we undertake a necessary learning process and, in order to succeed, Thailand must meet this challenge. Forever delaying until the time is right guarantees that our emerging democracy will stagnate until perhaps such a time when circumstances take over in the midst of yet another national political crisis.
Such an outcome is not ultimately in the interests of the great majority of Thais, who are making the reasonable claim to fair and democratic political representation.
Democracy itself is neither a talking-shop nor a forum for empty pledges.
In this regard, it is incumbent on the political leadership of this country to take the lead in promoting a brighter future for all Thais.
Titipol Phakdeewanich is a Political Scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/310074/will-decentralisation-fuel-the-fires-of-graft
