Thailand is once again being asked to imagine what the next constitution, now being drafted by lawmakers, will look like. Yet one important question has received remarkably little attention: will the new charter restore genuine local self-government, or will it simply be old wine in a new bottle, with the central government continuing to dominate local administration?
The question is not just an afterthought: it is about Thailand's future. A country cannot achieve balanced development while treating local governments as administrative extensions of the central government. Government -- either national or local cannot and will not be able to win public trust if local administration is vulnerable to manipulation, fraud, and patronage.
The 1997 constitution offered a good model for decentralisation. Often remembered as the "People's Constitution", it treated local government not merely as a delivery arm of the state, but as an expression of self-governance. Its local-government chapter required the state to give more autonomy and more resources to localities in accordance with self-government and the will of local people.
That was the democratic promise of 1997. Local government was to become a genuine governing institution through which people and communities could shape their own public services, budgets and development priorities. This ethos reflected a departure from top-down governance and a move to grassroots governance.
The subsequent 2007 constitution drafted after the 2006 coup did not abandon that promise. It still referred to local autonomy, self-government, and the will of the people. But after the coup, political momentum behind decentralisation and grassroots governance weakened. The language survived, while the spirit of genuine empowerment became more fragile.
The 2017 constitution moved Thailand back to the top-down approach. Its chapter was no longer titled Local Government, but "Local Administration". It still refers to self-governance and the will of local people. Yet, local governance and local people are still subjected to procedures prescribed by law and the central government's prescribed policies. Local administrations have duties and powers given to them by ordinary law. The vocabulary of self-government remains, but the architecture of central control grows stronger.
Thailand has more than 7,800 local administrative organisations. But numbers alone do not guarantee decentralisation of power. The deeper issue is whether they have clear functions, real fiscal power and credible personnel systems.
The recent local-government recruitment examination scandal should be seen not only as an alleged corruption case, but as a warning about local governance. The scandal puts the spotlight on the Department of Local Administration (DLA), under the Ministry of Interior.
The DLA organises recruitment examinations for local government positions across the country and supports local administrative organisations in areas such as planning, personnel management and finance. Yet the relationship between central and local government has too often cast the department in the role of regulator rather than a constructive institutional partner. Media reports say thousands of candidates were allegedly linked to a network that rigged local-government recruitment examinations, with alleged tea money payments ranging from 350,000 to 800,000 baht. The issue has become more than individual misconduct. It raises concern about the capacity and credibility of local administration and central government.
This is why local governance cannot be reduced to electoral politics alone. If local governments are expected to manage basic services, social care, disaster response, local economic development, and community well-being, they must prove to have credible, professional personnel systems and they must be free from manipulation.
Thailand does not need another constitution that mentions local self-government while surrounding it with conditions, supervision and administrative discretion. It needs a constitution that restores local government as a democratic and developmental institution.
There is also a compelling economic case. The Thailand Economic Monitor: Unlocking the Growth Potential of Secondary Cities, published by the World Bank in July 2024, argues that Thailand's secondary cities possess significant untapped potential to boost productivity, economic growth and national competitiveness. It also notes that development, policy support and public investment have long been concentrated in Bangkok. Despite generating substantial revenue for the central government, many local authorities receive disproportionately modest budget allocations.
For example, In 2024, Phuket received about 6.2 billion baht in government budget allocations, a figure provincial leaders say fell short of the island's infrastructure needs. The contrast is notable: Phuket generated an estimated 497.5 billion baht in tourism revenue that year, yet has limited authority over how public resources are raised and spent locally.
The question is whether a new constitution can help unlock the potential of Thailand's second-tier cities and local administrations.
A new constitution should therefore rethink local government. Thailand does not need more overlapping bureaucracies, fragmented responsibility, or central supervision disguised as reform. It needs clearer local authority, stronger fiscal foundations, accountable personnel systems, and constitutionally protected self-government.
This does not mean abandoning national standards. Local autonomy and accountability must go together. But accountability should not be used as an excuse for recentralisation -- bringing administrative power back to Government House and the ministries in the capital. A mature system should combine elected local leadership, professional administration, transparent public finance, meaningful citizen participation and national oversight limited to ensuring legality, integrity and minimum standards.
The promise of 1997 was that local government could become a school of democracy and a foundation of development. That promise has been weakened by constitutional redesign, administrative control, and weak political will. A new charter is an opportunity to reverse this decline.
That will only happen if local governance is placed at the centre of constitutional reform. If a local-government chapter repeats old formulas, personnel control will remain centralised, and local communities will have no meaningful voice, and Thailand will again squander its chance for democratic renewal and economic prosperity.
