Monarchy amidst a Democratic Thailand

By Kneeca Joy Serdena

Meddling into a different philosophy is hard and seems impossible yet if one
has the determination and has a suited goal setting of achieving it, possibility
follows through. One of its example is in Thailand today where the current king, King
Bhumibol Adulyadej, is nowadays the longest-reigning living monarch in the world.
When coming to throne in 1946 just fourteen years after the absolute monarchy had
been overthrown, the institution of the monarchy had nearly been eclipsed by new
political forces. In 1973 and 1992, the King placed a tip of his finger to end military
violence against anti-dictatorship protesters, establishing his role as final arbiter in
times of crisis.
Monarchy as an institution has substantially weakened for a number of
reasons. First, King Bhumibol as a person, successfully embodied the Thai throne.
Whether this has been due to the mere longevity of his reign or the constant public
relations efforts of the palace, the King has successfully become the object of the
personality cult. On the other hand, the more effectively the King as a person and
his good works are portrayed, the weaker the monarchy as an institution becomes.
This holds true by the Philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli that states My view is that
it is desirable to be both loved and feared; but it is difficult to achieve both and, if
one of them has to be lacking, it is much better to be feared than loved. According
to Machiavelli, love is a very weak bond which can easily be broken; therefore, if the
relationship between the prince and his subjects is one that is found on love, it is
very easy for the subjects to break the bond. Gratitude, in the perspective of the

subjects, was the bases of love. Therefore whenever men, as naturally self-centered
beings, see an opportunity to make themselves better, they find no difficulty in
breaking the bond of gratitude. On the other side, a connection between a ruler and
his subjects based on fear is one that is founded on dread of punishment which
makes it much stronger according to Machiavelli. Yet a warning was stated by
Machiavelli to those who would yield to his philosophy: while it is better for the
prince to be feared than loved, he should take care that he is not hated or despised
by his people.
The King personally might be certainly popular but his personal popularity
does not necessarily entails the legitimacy needed by his institution. In fact, this
may mean the opposite side of the story. It may well be that for many this Loyalty
to the throne extends no further than the present reign. Yes, the palace has
successfully build the image of the Kings personal connection to his people, playing
up his sacred status, and making the monarchy the spiritual center of the nation.
But successes of this type inevitably work against any successor to the throne.
Second, the uncontrolled use of the lese-majeste law has harmed the
monarchy. This las has limited the freedom of expression, but at least in the 1990s
and early 2000s there were relatively few cases. The lese-majeste law makes such
public polls impossible. The Law has deprived the monarchy of comment and
criticism that would help it situate itself more legitimacy within growing democratic
influence. As stated in the law, the king, queen, heir-apparent, and regent but in
practice it has seemingly been to protect other members of the royal family as well.
Supporters of this law have attempted to extend the protection of the law up to the
members of the Privy Council. One of the possible problem on why there is a
confusion and abuse of this law is the broad interpretation of the courts. Those

suggesting amendment to the law have been forced into exile, physically assaulted,
and threatened with death.
Lastly, there is another factor that let the monarchy to where it is headed
now. A change in the twilight of the present reign has been the deep and pervasive
development of political consciousness amongst Thai citizens as a whole. One of its
example is the 2006 coup. The said coup is endorsed by the monarchy, the coup
makers justified the coup by presenting publicly the corruption of the current
administration and the threats to the monarchy. Yet the coup turned to be
unsuccessful and the issue was used against the monarch. Many contradicted the
issue but these was wiped out when the monarchy gave an amnesty.
But there are those who did not forget the coup, they are the ones who
continues to organize to remove the effects of the coup by creating a new , more
democratic constitution which removes the amnesty clause and prosecuting the
coup makers, and reconsidering any legislative or judicial action that led directly
from the coup. This new politically aware citizenry is known as the United Front for
Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD). The movement has given rise to a
phenomenon known as the Awakening, or eyes having been opened. This
organization have had their eyes opened to the role of the monarchy and have
engaged in full-blown historical and political critiques of the institution. They used
internet networks and by direct conversation at protests.
The active involvement of the palace in the coup, the appearance of taking
sides by members of the royalty in political conflict, the indiscriminate use of the
lese-majeste law, and even the awareness of the immense wealth of the throne
have all greatly diminished the legitimacy of the monarchy and seriously
compromised its future.

The oppression of the subjects by the monarch and building up its name for
the sake of its own intention showed an act of tyranny. This act eventually fueled up
the desire of the people to stop this actions of the Monarch which resulted into the
uprisings such as the formation of UDD as mentioned above. But the greatest failure
of the current monarchy is the failure to present a positive succession scenario.
Officially, Prince Vajiralongkorn was designated by the King as crown
prince in 1972. But as the Kings health has worsened over the past decade, as
efforts to rejuvenate the princes image have failed, and as palace infighting has
increased, other succession scenarios have emerged. As there has not been a
controversial succession within living memory in Thailand, there is a lot of legal
wiggle room in these scenarios, most involving the Privy Council which might try to
effect a managed transition to the next reign. If, for instance, the King were to
depart the scene, the legal status of the Privy Council and its president are
ambiguous. It could be interpreted that Prem automatically becomes the regent
upon the Kings death. As regent he could first revise the Succession Law of 1924 in
a way that allows the Privy Council to name a different successorpresumably
Princess Sirindhorn. Or it might delay forwarding the name of the successor to
parliament by calling for a period of mourning of unspecified duration. This
confusion and worry on who will be the next bearer of the crown ads to the
foregoing ant-monarchial issues.
At the end of the day, the existence and survival of the monarchy in Thailand
rests upon the question of legitimacy. Fulfilling its role, the King became the father
of the subjects and someone who people can look up to yet his monarchy cultivated
a set of values and interests that are opposing to popular sovereignty and out of the
step with current government of Thailand which is democratic constitutional

monarchy. It has historically undermined democratic elected governments and

exposed its vague view in its public statements and actions. It has failed to perform
its role under a democratic monarchy by toppling the democratic elected
governments, allowing suppressive lese-majeste law, building up the name of the
current King so high that the successor, by comparison, might find a hard time or
even impossible to succeed. To sum up, the monarchy failed to carry out its role in
line with the democratic values of a democratic Thailand.