Daily Times

Thailand is a kingdom in which the form of government is constitutional monarchy. The sovereign powers belonging to the people, whereas the King is the supreme head of state, exercising the sovereign powers through the National Assembly, the Cabinet and the Courts. Basically, the form of Thai government is similar to that of the British and Scandinavian constitutional monarchies, which rule according to the combined principles of constitutionalism and democracy. The constitutional monarchy is distinct from republics that rule by elected presidents, who also serve as heads of state.

The traditional form of government in Thailand has been the monarchy with the King as the supreme head of the state and Kingdom. Starting in the thirteenth century, in the Sukhothai kingdom, predecessor to the Thai Kingdoms of Ayutthaya (C 1350-1767) and Rattanakosin or Bangkok (C 1782- present), the government was first based upon paternal kingship in accordance with Buddhist political philosophy, in which the King was directly in charge of the administration of justice and the welfare of the people. The paternal monarchy was eventually strengthened by the introduction of centralized administration in the Ayutthaya kingdom when the King assumed more of the role of the divine ruler following the practice of deva- raja in the Khmer empire, which had itself been influenced by Hinduism. The dialectical relations between these two contradictory forms of government thus have characterized Thai political and social life; one is personalized, informal clientship and the other is a bureaucratized and formal hierarchy.

In the Bangkok era, Thai state and government were under pressure from both internal and external factors that eventually led to reform of government and administration of the state. A series of political changes and reforms actually took place after the establishment of the Bangkok or Chakri dynasty as the sole ruling house of Thai kingdom. As a result of interaction with the western powers and colonization in Asia, the Thai State was able to create, for the first time, a centralized government over her newly demarcated boundaries. Thus came the absolutism of the monarchical regime under King Chulalongkorn or Rama V (r 1868- 1910). The continued expansion of the domestic economy and differentiation of social classes in the twentieth century demanded radical changes in government. King Rama V himself undertook the reform of the old administration with satisfactory results. His able and far-sighted father- King Mongkut or Rama IV (r 1851-1868), laid some of the groundwork for the future modernization of the kingdom along western lines. But political reform aiming at some form of democratic government was too radical and premature to implement in Siam at that point of time. Most ruling elite believed, the level of education was too low or non-existent in most parts of the kingdom. Also the modern ideas of government were based on very different beliefs and philosophy. According to the Thai political worldview, there is no sharp dichotomy between secular and religious beliefs. And that the Central authority must encompass and order society morally, politically and economically. Harmony and unity thus are valued highly in the Thai polity. Changes coming from the periphery or from the bottom were therefore regarded as disruptions of the natural order of the state.

The history of modern government in Thailand can be seen as a process of searching for an appropriate form of government capable of securing a stable and ordered society

By the first quarter of the twentieth century, the Siamese elite perceived the need and opportunity to adjust and to reform the country to be able to stand independently alongside other modern nations. Rama VI or King Vajiravudh (r 1910-1925), who was the first King educated abroad, ruled with a firm belief in his ideas whether in government or in arts and culture. By the first decade of the twentieth century, tensions in the county mounted. Internal politics was sharpened not only from conflicts between the royalty and the growing number of military officers but also among the royalty themselves. The most significant event was the failed coup d’état in 1912, planned by a group of junior military officers.

The successful coup came on June 24, 1932. The People’s Party, some junior members of the military and civil services and a few merchants, seized power from King Prajadhipok or Rama VII (r 1925-1934) and established a parliamentary form of government with a constitutional monarch. The idea of a revolution was formed six years earlier among the top leaders of the group led by Pridi Phanomyong while they were students in Europe. Back home they found more like-minded officers who began to resent the growing royal monopoly of power. Finally, with the impact from the world depression of 1930s, the stage was set for historical change.

The history of modern government in Thailand can be seen as a process of searching for an appropriate form of government capable of securing a stable and ordered society- The first fifteen years (1932-1947) of Thai democracy was a transitional period of searching for order by the new competing political groups, consisting mainly of military and civilian officers. Political conflicts and the violent overthrow of the government gradually became normal political currency within the modern Thai political system, and remained so for years to come. Stabilization of the government quickly was the more important goal than democratization of the society. Lacking a strong and viable national base for the new democratic system of government, political powers were soon concentrated among bureaucratic leaders especially military leaders.

Unable to maintain his role in the new government, King Rama VII abdicated in 1934. The National Assembly then invited Prince Ananda Mahidol to succeed the throne as King Rama VIII (r 1934-1946).

Following the great depression of the 1930’s, Thailand saw an opportunity to build a nation on its own terms independent from western powers domination. Nation- building and national independence, more than any other domestic issues became the urgent and important agenda for the government. The rise of militarism in the late 1930’s in East Asia reinforced the increasingly dominant pattern of government in Thailand, one that aimed at keeping social order and stabilizing the government at all costs.

A constitutional regime flourished for a brief period from 1945-1947, with the emergence of political parties and a fully elected parliament. The war-torn economy and social disruptions during and after the Pacific war invited many criticisms of government policies. The turning point came when the young King Ananda (Rama VIII) was found dead in his chamber on June 9, 1946. The liberal government under Pridi Phanomyong, who was the leader of the Free Thai Movement during World War II, resigned but this still could not bring back political order, due to vehement to the government. Order finally was ushered in by a military coup on November 8, 1947, which ended the dominant role of the people’s party for good. Field Marshal P. Pibulsonggram remained Prime Minister from 1938-1944 and 1948-1957 before the army finally overthrew him in a coup led by General Sarit Thanarat. His regime expanded and strengthened the centralized control and authority of Bangkok over the provinces and local communities.

The Thai model of sufficiency thinking aims to transform the mindset of a whole population to achieve the seemingly impossible: enriching everyone’s lives in a truly sustainable way. Innovative management practices developed by King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand have been applied across Thailand in agriculture, business, education, government and community organizations over the past over two decades. Thailand is one of those countries whose government has adopted this kind of thinking as national policy. The late King (Rama IX) or King Bhumibol Adulyadej, most loved and adored by the Thai people, is quoted to have said, “Everybody must continually subject their own actions to thorough analysis to ensure they are correct, based on rationality, wisdom, and self-awareness, in order to overcome the kinds of evil and to be able to achieve true success in both work and life”.

King Bhumibol said in an interview in 1982, “A leader is a symbol, whether he happens to have power or not. So a constitutional monarch is first of all a symbol of the country. He must change with the country but, at the same time, he must keep alive the spirit of the country”. Evolution was the keynote of King Bhumibol’s Reign and Rule. The King studied at Lausanne University, Switzerland. He returned to Switzerland after he was crowned King, to continue his studies until his graduation in the field of Public administration.

In his speech delivered on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of King Bhumibol’s ascension to the throne, United States’ President Bill Clinton’s said: “Your majesty, Thailand’s growing role on the global stage is a fairing tribute to your leadership. You have guarded Thailand through political crisis; you have helped secure a climate in which democracy can flourish. Your tireless efforts, as well as Her Majesty’s, to advance rural development have been a model for all the world”.

Elections to the Parliament of Thailand are no less controversial and problematic than anywhere in the world. The long-awaited general election in Siam/Thailand has passed, but the schism that remains is so overwhelming that some political observers feel the country is more divided than ever before and fear it could result in violence. The unrest cycle Risks Repeat. The experience of the past is so bitter and terrifying that something needs to be done to guarantee security and safety to the general public. There is an element of mistrust, which needs to be removed to restore confidence in the credibility of institutions that matter and play a vital role, specially in a democracy. At the same time people are wary of foreign-aided ‘democracy trap’. Governments everywhere need to restore confidence of the people through deliberate efforts to ensure transparency and good governance.

The writer is a former director, National Institute of Public Administration (NTPA) Government of Pakistan, a political analyst, a public policy expert and a published author