The Role of District Chiefs Based on Political Philosophy in Creating a Balance of Power between the State and Local Administration

Abstract

This study aims to; 1) examine the concepts and principles of political philosophy used as a framework for explaining the exercise of state power,
2) analyze the roles, powers, and duties of district chiefs and local administration within the context of decentralization, and 3) propose a role model for district chiefs in creating a fair balance of power between the state and local administration based on the principles of political philosophy. This research employs a qualitative research design. The sample was selected through purposive sampling and consisted of 20 participants, categorized into four groups: experts in political philosophy, representatives of provincial administration, executives of local administrative organizations, and representatives of the civil society sector. Research instruments included in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and documentary analysis. Data were analyzed using descriptive content analysis through data categorization, comparison, and synthesis in accordance with the research framework.

The findings reveal that the appropriate political philosophy for explaining the role of district chiefs is characterized by an integration of Western political philosophy, governance theory, and Buddhist political philosophy, which together serve as a normative foundation guiding the legitimacy, scope, and direction of state power at the local level. Regarding roles, powers, and duties, the results indicate that while district chiefs and local administrative organizations possess legally distinct authorities, their functions are interconnected and overlapping in practice, making coordination and facilitation roles essential for effective area-based governance. Furthermore, the study synthesizes three role models of district chiefs for creating a fair balance of power: (1) moral and justice-oriented leadership, (2) coordinative and facilitative leadership between the state and local administration, and (3) institutional balancing leadership for maintaining stability within the governance system.