(Download) "Institutional Incentives and Informal Local Political Groups (Phuak) in Thailand: Comments on Allen Hicken and Paul Chambers." by Journal of East Asian Studies ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Institutional Incentives and Informal Local Political Groups (Phuak) in Thailand: Comments on Allen Hicken and Paul Chambers.
- Author : Journal of East Asian Studies
- Release Date : January 01, 2007
- Genre: Social Science,Books,Nonfiction,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 247 KB
Description
Post-1997 Thai politics have been shaped by the effects of two momentous events that occurred almost at the same time: the introduction of far-reaching structural changes by the 1997 constitution, and the appearance of a singularly overbearing and centralizing political leader--Thaksin Shinawatra. To political analysts, this situation has provided uniquely rich opportunities to observe over a number of years whether constitutional engineering had the envisaged effect of restricting the politicians' "undesirable" actions, and whether the intended institutional change was realized. However, the coincidence of constitutional change and the occurrence of Thaksin has also made it necessary to distinguish the effects of structural changes from the effects of the new form of political leadership. One of the main issues during the political reform process was the desire to make Thailand's governmental system more stable and efficient. A core intention thus was to increase the leadership capability of the prime minister by making his decisions sufficiently independent from his own political party, his coalition partners, and the House of Representatives. This view was expressed in the final report and recommendations of the Democracy Development Committee in April 1995, and it was mirrored by a statement in the "Basic Framework for Drafting the People's Constitution," distributed countrywide for public hearings by the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) in March 1997. (1) This document in particular said that although the prime minister had the legal powers, "he cannot show his leadership in governing the country" because he was under the control of his own party and his coalition partners. (2)