The Role of the Monarchy in Contemporary Thailand

Michelle-Rose Sherwood
Date of Submission: 19 December 2012 (1990 words)
th

Disclaimer: All opinions contained within this essay are my own. My personal opinions and writings are not intended to defame, humiliate and/or injure any person or institution. I have sought out information from documents which I believe to be accurate and relevant to the subject, but the information contained within these is the sole responsibility of the original author(s). Regarding the laws of lese majest, it is not my intention to violate, insult or defame the monarchy in any way that will compromise the sanctity of Thai culture and/or the Buddhist religion. I believe that I still have much to learn about Thailand; its culture, history and politics and wish to study in Thailand in order to be able to fully comprehend and appreciate the role of the monarchy in Thai society.

In this essay I intend to present the view that the role of the monarchy in Thailand is to sustain the current capitalist economic structure. I will seek to outline why the monarchy is so entrenched in Thai society and how this may be detrimental to the application of democracy by examining the constitutional and non-constitutional roles of the monarchy within Thailand. I will discuss some controversial issues that surround the nature of this question, such as the stringent laws of lese majest, and I will also examine several different theories of the state. I will seek to conclude what the role of the monarchy is in Thailand today and the problems it may face regarding its sustainability as Thailand develops. The Thai monarchy is a greatly revered institution by Thai citizens that is often difficult for outsiders to fully comprehend (Royal Thai Embassy, n.d.). The monarch King Bhumibol, or by his title King Rama IX, represents all that Thai citizens are and should aim to be. However, Paul M. Handleys The King Never Smiles presented a very contrasting image of His Majesty. Banned in Thailand before it was published in 2009, the book caused much controversy by depicting King Bhumibol as a member of the elite who acts in his own best interests, for the benefit of his wealth and status, rather than for the good of his countrys subjects. During The Siamese Revolution of 1932, a coup dtat overthrew King Rama VII and forc ed him to agree to implement a constitution of Thailand. This abolished the absolute monarchy and founded a monarchy that would now be constitutionally governed. Since the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Thailand, the roles of the monarchy have reverted to being highly symbolic, similar to those of Queen Elizabeth II. As symbols of unity and social solidarity, I suggest that by their very status, both monarchs should not extend themselves beyond their constitutional roles; doing so could/does result in political fragility and social disruption. King Bhumibols most important constitutional role to most Thais is to uphold and defend the Buddhist faith. Furthermore, as Handley observed, The King Never Smiles. In Buddhism, this means that His Majesty is free from attachments and is thus enlightened. Therefore, the monarch is observed by his people as a Bodhisattva; he is wise and all-knowing. The respect that the Thais hold for His Majesty is highly reinforced by their Buddhist faith. To explain the religious role of the monarchy, I must explore different theories of the state, such as that of structural functionalism. This theory could be used to explain that the monarchys religious role in contemporary Thailand is to represent the embodiment of the Buddha and his teachings. This allows a collective conscience (Durkheim, 2000) to be sustained. The collective conscience means that people in society share norms, values and beliefs which encourage social solidarity; these norms, values and beliefs are usually dictated by a societys religion. In Thai Buddhism, mainly Theravada, the Dhamma teaches that to reach Nirvana (enlightenment), you must practice Right Speech. Within this, it is taught to avoid harmful speech such as divisive speech, harsh speech and idle chatter; thus any type of speech that may create tension between people, have been used to directly harm someones feelings or gossiping will restrict Buddhists from achieving Nirvana. This could be used to display why lese majest has been incorporated in the Thai Criminal Code since 1908 and in the Constitution of Thailand since 1932. Therefore, functionalists would argue that defending these laws is of great importance to preserve the sanctity of the monarchy in Thailand, and would further offer an understanding of the monarchys role as a defender of the Buddhist faith. The cognitive behind these laws, an instrumental Marxist would argue, is determined by a cultural hegemony; the elite class, comprised of the monarchy, military/police and bureaucrats, dominate societys system of norms, values and beliefs. Restricting the public from speaking critically of the monarchy ensures that the elite class can use the monarchy as an ideological state apparatus (Althusser, 2005); manipulating the public by linking loyalty to the King with allowing them to remain in powerful positions. For example, when trying to gain public support for their 2007 constitution charter, the military heeded the words: "Love the King. Care about the King. Vote in a referendum. Accept the

2007 draft charter" (BBC, 2007). This was a military imposed charter but was approved by a public referendum which could illustrate just how powerful an apparatus the monarchy is. Therefore, by using concepts from instrumental Marxism, it can be identified that the role of the monarchy in contemporary Thailand is to be used as a tool by the elite class to secure the sustainability of their power. A structural Marxist would argue that the role of the monarchy is to reinforce a social hierarchy. A hierarchy between Buddha and his followers can be identified; he has reached enlightenment, thus he is intelligent and wise in comparison with his subordinate followers. Therefore, the message reinforced by Buddhism and its embedment within Thai society is that as Buddhists, Thais must accept their inferiority to enlightened ones, such as the monarchy, in order to gain merit and be reincarnated. Therefore, Buddhism in Thai society acts as an opium of the people (Marx, 1977), subconsciously manipulating the masses into accepting their low social status and lack of social mobility, keeping them from challenging the capitalist economic structure. Therefore, from a structural Marxist perspective, the role of the Thai monarchy is to uphold the underlying ideologies of the Buddhist faith to ensure that members of society remain faithful to the capitalist system. According to Dahl (1961), as a member of the community elites the Kings role is to represent his own specific interests. Dahl conducted his study in New Haven, a city in America. I believe that as America and Thailand both have capitalist structures, his study can still have relevance to Thailand, as in any capitalist society, there will always be a ruling elite class that will aim to have their interests represented over those of the public. However, as stipulated in the Thai constitution, His Majesty should represent the interests of his subjects rather than his own. The classical pluralist perspective could be criticised for neglecting the fact that the monarchy is a wholly enshrined institution to the culture of Thailand, and that there are certain constraints on freedom of expression for Thais both at home and even abroad. For example, when political tensions reached a boiling point amidst the protests of 1976, His Majesty had a duty to intervene and restore his country back to normality whilst remaining politically neutral. However, King Bhumibol endorsed the military coup, describing it as a manifestation of what the people clearly wanted (Turton 1978, p. 91). Furthermore, following the political crisis of 2005, Queen Sirikit attended the cremation of a Peoples Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protester (The Nation, 2008) and allegations soon after the political unrest emerged regarding Queen Sirikits involvement in PAD operations (The Guardian, 2010). These factors, therefore, discourage any conflicting views as there are heavy penalties in Thailand for appearing to be antimonarchist. Therefore one of the monarchys constitutional roles is to represent the interests of their people and to remain politically neutral, securing social stability; and although His Majesty restored Thailand to peace, His Majesty and the Queen made clear distinctions of which political parties they support, directly contradicting their roles. However, classical pluralists would note that if the publics interests were misrepresented, the public should have reacted: there is an end to the king when his subjects do not want to have him. (Aristotle, 350 B.C.E.) Elite pluralists believe that the interests in a society are heavily determined by the power and status of the people behind them. The interests of the elite class will receive a higher level of representation, having a direct impact on the amount of public support that these interests can gain. Pareto (1935) argued that a game of manipulation occurs between two groups of elites; politicians (foxes) and the military (lions). The foxes are powerful through their sly conduct and the lions are powerfu l through force. King Bhumibol retains ultimate power because he has control over the foxes and the lions due to his high status. To add to this argument, Mills (1956) argued that the elites need to cooperate to some degree to ensure that they can maintain their elite status, which somewhat overshadows their differing specific interests. Thus the foxes, lions and the monarchy form a power elite within society; a powerful section of society joined in solidarity for the benefit of their power and status, rather than for the benefit of the members of society. Therefore, from the elite pluralist perspective, the role of the monarchy in contemporary Thailand is to ensure the sustainability of the elites domination of the masses.

Structural functionalists such as Parsons (1963) would argue that the monarchy is an institution that works for the benefit of everyone in society. By funding and initiating development projects, King Bhumibol has recognised that villagers are having problems with generating a sustainable income which, in turn, affects their sense of belonging to the state. By founding a sufficiency economy, King Bhumibol has taught many villagers how to increase their household income, subsequently improving their quality of life and increasing their sense of belonging to the state. On a much bigger scale, he has also secured the economic security of the entire state, ensuring Thailand will be ready to cope with rapid physical, social, environmental, and cultural changes from the outside world (Krongkaew, 2003). The article Modern Monarchy (Royal Thai Embassy, n.d.) states that such projects have deterred villagers, who previously felt secluded from the rest of society, from falling under the influence of the Communist Party of Thailand. A functionalist would maintain that this fulfils a positive function, ensuring that political stability is secured. A Marxist, however, would argue that these projects were founded by King Bhumibol to prevent the high proportion of the Thai population that live in rural areas, estimated to be around 68% (The Nobel Foundation, 2003), from realising the inequalities that are reproduced by the government system. Therefore, the ruling class can retain their social positions without scrutiny from the public. The philosophy of sufficiency economy developed by His Majesty serves as a practical example of how he has fulfilled his non-constitutional roles of being charitable and effectively combatting development issues that face Thais in modern society. The motives behind such projects, however, remain debatable. To conclude, whether motivated by way of defending their power and status, or to protect the sanctity of Thailand and its citizens, the Thai monarchys most important constitutional role is to protect and uphold the Buddhist faith. However, with the rise of globalisation, it has become easier to compare the functionality of different societies, which in some cases has led to the disintegration of native cultures. Many countries have become subject to McDonaldization (Ritzer, 2004), whereby their native cultures have been somewhat replaced by an American culture. Therefore if a fragmentation of religious beliefs occurs in Thailand, will the influence and relevance of the monarchy still remain? To protect themselves against the implications produced by globalisation, the ruling elite will need to employ more strategic tactics to keep the masses where they want them. Citizens have already started to question the militarys actions, the governments and the bureaucrats. The monarchy is the final sacrosanct pillar still standing and its preservation by the elites will ensure that pure democracy cannot be achieved - only the elite classes will be able to maintain the top positions in society as they have always done. Further, as communications between all aspects of the ruling elite are much more conspicuous in Thailand than in Britain, this will need to be addressed in order to keep the masses hidden under a veil of capitalism.

Bibliography Althusser, L., 2005. For Marx (Radical Thinkers). New York: Verso Books. Aristotle, 350 B.C.E. Politics. [online] Available through: <http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html> [Accessed 6 December 2012] BBC, 2007. Thai draft constitution approved. [online] <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asiapacific/6276154.stm> [Accessed 3 December 2012] Dahl, R., 1961. Who Governs?: Democracy And Power In An American City . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Durkheim, E., 2008. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Oxford World's Classics) . Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks. Handley, P.M., 2006. The King Never Smiles. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Krongkaew, M., 2003. The Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy. [online] Available through: <http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue3/article_292.html> [Accessed 3 December 2012] Marx, K., 1977. Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy Of Right'. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mills, C. W., 1956. The Power Elites. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pareto, V., 1935. Mind and Society. New York, NY: Dover. Parsons, T., 1963. On the concept of political power. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society. Ritzer, G., 2004. The McDonalidization of Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Royal Thai Embassy, n.d. Modern Monarchy. [e-book] Available through: <http://www.thaiembassy.se/minmapp/filer/pdf-pages/modernmonarchy.pdf> [Accessed 3 December 2012] Suwannathat-Pian, K., 2003. Kings, Country and Constitutions: Thailand's Political Development 1932-2000. London: Routledge. The Guardian, 2010. US embassy cables: Thai Queen Sirikit encouraged 2006 coup. [online] Available through: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/172121> [Accessed 7 December 2012] The Nation, 2008. Queen attends slain protester's cremation. [online] Accessed through: <http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/10/14/politics/politics_30085986.php> [Accessed 7 December 2012] The Nobel Foundation, 2003. Percentage living in rural areas. [online] Available through: <http://www.nationmaster.com/country/th-thailand/peo-people> [Accessed 14 December 2012] Turton, A., Fast, J. and Caldwell M., 1978. Thailand: Roots of Conflict. Nottingham: Spokesman.