Unlocking Local Administration: Lowering Candidate Age and Allowing Re-election Beyond Two Terms—Opportunities for New Generations or Extended Rule by Political Families?

Unlocking local government: reducing candidate age and allowing re-election after two terms. "Scholars" see this as a double-edged sword—helping open space for new generations but also enabling established political families to maintain power. They recommend addressing the core problem of persistent bureaucratic centralization.

On 28 Aug 2026 GMT+7, the Government Gazette published four laws concerning local administrative organizations (LAOs) related to the revision of qualifications for candidates running for local executive positions. These laws take effect from 29 Aug 2026 GMT+7. The notes specify the aim to promote competition, participation, and increase diversity among eligible candidates.

Key changes in candidate qualifications include:

1. Lowering the minimum age requirement. Candidates must be at least 25 years old on election day (unless the specific LAO law sets a different age), reduced from the previous minimum of 35 years.
2. Educational qualifications for PAO chiefs and mayors now require at least an associate degree, higher vocational certificate, or equivalent, lowered from the prior requirement of a bachelor's degree or equivalent (or previous service as local council member, local executive, or parliamentarian).
   However, the law allows candidates without the specified education if they have political experience, such as prior service as a member of parliament, local council, or local executive, as defined by law.
3. Removal of term limits. Previously limited to two consecutive terms (maximum eight years), the law now maintains four-year terms for PAO chiefs, mayors, and SAO chiefs from election day but removes the restriction on consecutive terms.
4. Clarification regarding media shareholdings. It now explicitly states this applies only to currently operating newspaper or media businesses.

Thairath Online special news team discussed this issue with Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yutthaporn Isarachai, Faculty of Political Science, Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University. He views the local law amendments as having both positive and negative aspects. Two main points attracting attention are: First, lowering the minimum age for local executives to 25. He sees this positively, as it opens opportunities for new generations to enter local politics and increases candidate competition, providing more choices for voters compared to the past, which was dominated by "political families" and established political networks.

However, others worry that younger candidates may lack experience managing constituents, be unfamiliar with bureaucratic systems, and that this change might not significantly reduce political family dominance, as modern political families have also evolved by training new generations and encouraging their offspring to compete.

The second key point is the removal of term limits. Positively, this could allow for continuity in work and fully empower voters to decide without time constraints. On the downside, it may facilitate political families in solidifying and prolonging their power bases and networks, which aligns with lowering the minimum age.

"Personally, I agree with lowering the minimum age to open opportunities for youth and increase voter choice, but I disagree with removing term limits. Ultimately, even if the elected officials are knowledgeable and experienced, we must develop new generations continuously. More importantly, the system and structure must fully decentralize power to local governments—not just unlock term limits and claim that continuity is improved," he said.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yutthaporn believes term limits should remain in local governments to help prevent political family power succession, even if it cannot eliminate it entirely. Competent individuals who are not local executives still have other suitable positions to serve the public.

Similarly, Thailand currently has younger high-ranking civil servants with long career spans who can establish power bases. However, looking abroad, such as in Singapore,when young personnel reach top positions,they retire upon completing their terms to take other roles.

"If you start serving early, you should also retire early. Problems arise when someone starts early but stays too long. If you're competent, don't worry—you will be assigned other roles. For those less capable, there are mechanisms to prevent them from staying in positions or exploiting power cycles," he explained.

Local vs. National Levels

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yutthaporn notes that even if new candidates enter the race, lacking understanding of local sociology or political structures makes winning difficult. Voter perspectives differ between local and national elections.

National elections focus on broad issues like the constitution, livelihoods, and the economy, while local elections emphasize tangible local achievements, solving water and electricity problems, long-term community support, and familiarity with residents.

"In Bangkok, the Progressive Party won all parliamentary seats but secured less than half of the local council seats. In provinces with less urban social structures, this difference is more pronounced, making it harder for new candidates," he said.

Pushing for Genuine Decentralization

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yutthaporn argues the bigger issue is the Thai bureaucracy's continued dominance over local governance, summed up by the saying, "Thai bureaucracy is centralized but fragmented." Centralized at thepyramid's apex,where a few central authorities still control regional and local administrations, while the fragmentation refers to ministries and local areas working independently.

For example, Bangkok, a special local administrative organization with an annual budget over 100 billion baht and tens of thousands of staff, still lacks full authority to solve all problems itself, such as PM 2.5 dust pollution, which involves many agencies beyond Bangkok's control.

Currently, Thailand's decentralization mainly creates branches of the bureaucracy. Large local governments like PAOs and city municipalities remain branches of provinces, while smaller ones like SAOs are branches of districts.

Therefore, Thailand should fully decentralize power to local levels in an authentic way, also recognizing local identity, economy, and culture, truly reaching the people.

The key to progress is "unlocking" and amending the 1991 State Administration Act, which structures the central, regional, and local bureaucracies. Many sectors and political parties are currently promoting this reform in parliament, studying proposals to amend the Act. The developments must be closely followed.