Have the floods degraded the idea of decentralisation?

Last week, a personal secretary of under-fire Justice Minister Pracha Promnok raised anew an issue that had been hounding the flood-relief efforts of the central government and the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. Thirachai Wutthitham, reiterating that he was only airing a personal opinion, said it would have been easier to handle the flood crisis had the government and the Bangkok governor belonged to the same political party.

It was an interesting comment, to say the least, coming from someone in a political camp that purportedly advocates decentralisation. By Thirachai’s logic, every flooded province must be governed by a pro-government governor so as to ensure smooth emergency operations. And since we barely know where possible future flooding is going to hit, basically every province in the Kingdom must be governed by a pro-government governor. This is where the desire for “absolute power” usually stems from.

To be fair to Thirachai, Thailand’s provincial administration system is still centralised, except for a very few cases like Bangkok. Admittedly, conflicts between the Pheu Thai government and the Democrat-controlled Bangkok Metropolitan Administration complicated the flood situation in the northern outskirts of the capital. To blame it squarely on the fact that the Bangkok governor comes from the main opposition party is, however, too convenient.

First, the government rejected calls for a declaration of a state of emergency, which could have pre-empted some political problems. Then the prime minister invoked a law that gave her concrete leverage against the Bangkok governor, but coordination still did not seem to improve. While some delays can be blamed on the disagreements between the government and the Bangkok authorities, whether or not the prime minister has been decisive enough is also a big question.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s key failure in this crisis concerned mobilisation. The Flood Relief Operations Centre (FROC) was supposed to be a “war room” where every issue was thoroughly discussed, differences were ironed out, collective decisions made and responsibility shared. FROC was supposed to be a place where vested political interests were put aside in the name of bringing under control a public emergency. None of these things happened.

Bangkok has been searching its soul. Issues like the “big bag” flood barriers and the prolonged suffering of many inundated residents are making many Bangkokians take a long hard look at themselves. But the capital doing it alone will never be enough. Understanding is a mutual thing, and it’s the government’s job to try and help the country achieve this understanding. It doesn’t matter where the political base of the government is. Like it or not, the Yingluck administration has only two choices – keep the national divide wide open and benefit from it during elections, or try to forget its “party hat” and put the “government hat” on. The latter option won’t bear immediate fruit, but it’s something a real leader should aspire to.

Of course, it would have been easier for Yingluck had the Bangkok governor been someone from her own Pheu Thai Party. That doesn’t mean it would have been easier for Thailand – unless Pheu Thai can put its hand on its heart and say that centralisation is better than decentralisation, that is.

As the flood crisis spreads to Thailand’s South, what will Thirachai say now? A smooth relief operation in his context would require a purge of local and community leaders in most, if not all, of the affected areas in the South, and their replacement with people installed by the government.

A misconception stemming from this flood disaster seems to be that if everyone sings the same tune, things will be all right. The truth is, singing the same tune cannot guarantee the right decisions will be made. What is best for Thailand has to be constructive differences, understanding of those differences, followed by compromises based on that unbiased understanding. That will not just ensure the country’s survival when a crisis of this magnitude strikes again, but will serve as the real foundation for democracy and decentralisation.