Local Politics and Democracy in Thailand
Abstract This article aimed to explain the development of the Thai local politics and democracy which originated from the concept of the administration decentralization, and to promote the importance of democracy basic principles learning. In developed countries it is evident that the progress of politics and democracy experienced the processes of tolerance, majority rules and minority rights, conflict solving, negotiation, and benefits assimilation. The early stage of the initiation of the Thai local administration, under the District Administration Act of the year 1994 has also caused the conflicts and violence to life and properties, as well as crimes and corruptions of those involved with local politicians. However, the experience from the past two decades has led to the development of communities and local politicians resulting in the development of public utilities including roads, water supply, water sources, public spaces, public properties, and local economy. The centralized phenomena, including the number of votes in the elections, protests, and silence during the coup d’etat, reflected the failure and weaknesses of the national administration. Thus, the development of local administration can be considered as a good lesson in solving conflicts and violence in the nation's politics.
Accountability perception of Thai Government: to whom and what counts
PurposePublic sector entities face conflicting demands from stakeholders. The literature suggests identifying and prioritizing stakeholders can improve accountability. Thailand, an emerging economy, and currently under military rule, provides an interesting context to investigate stakeholder tensions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how and why the Thai Government bureaucrats prioritize their stakeholders.Design/methodology/approachThe study draws on the managerial branch of stakeholder theory and stakeholder salience theory to examine the importance of various stakeholders and of the stakeholders’ salient attributes perceived by the Thai Government bureaucrats in discharging its accountability. The study uses a survey questionnaire mailed out to the central government departments in Thailand.FindingsThe study finds that single most important stakeholder is the Office of the Auditor-General. The public is perceived as the second. This is dissimilar to the western-centric accountability focus on the public, and challenges claims by the Thai military coup that it will bring democratic rule. “Legal power” supporting the stakeholders’ claims for government accountability is the most influential attribute in determining stakeholder importance and prioritizing attention for government bureaucrat’s discharge of its accountability.Originality/valueSuch findings increase understanding of the applicability of stakeholder theory and stakeholder salience theory in the context of military rule in emerging economy countries such as Thailand. This paper also provides suggestions of how stakeholders may shape their salience in order to gain priority. This also provides an immediate suggestion for reforms of the Thai regulatory frameworks in prioritizing stakeholders and promoting the government’s greater accountability.
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.