On the 24th of June 1932, a coup d'état transformed Siam’s absolute monarchy to a constitutional one. Seven years later, Siam became ‘Thailand,’ where the stripping of absolute monarchical power instilled a new mantra into the nation; ‘the land of the free.’ This established the precedent towards a new democracy, where a bloodless coup became a resonance of the potential for peaceful democratic change. Today in Thailand, however, that great feat no longer means anything, for the power of the monarchy is more absolute than ever.
The existence of monarchy conserves and instils many traditional beliefs and values in much of a country. When there is a death of a monarch, like that of Queen Elizabeth, there is much sympathy and respect expressed for them, their reign, and their influence. Yet the transition to a new monarch changes practically nothing, and they continue to be bound by the constitution. In Thailand however, when King Bhumibol died in 2016, the successive monarch's response to the throne was a little different. Alteration to the constitution. The Thai monarch can in fact amend the constitution so that they go by a different one to the people. This potentially roots from the ruling Buddhist ideology, where the king is in fact not equal to the people and can therefore go by a distinct set of rules.
As in most constitutional monarchies, a political intervention by the monarch is not only unexpected, but unwelcome. Yet despite this consensus, King Maha Vajiralongkorn made the decision to amend the constitution to increase his own powers. In accordance with democratic norms, a referendum took place. With 61 percent approval and a 59 percent turnout, the constitution was amended. However, the changes made to the constitution were not entailed in the referendum. There were ‘small changes’ proposed and imposed afterwards by the King, and so without the people’s approval. These ‘small changes’ restored royal influence over important procedures such as the ‘appointment of a regent, if the king is overseas or incapacitated, and at times of acute political crisis.’ Thailand had taken a step backwards. Furthermore, Vajiralongkorn presided over an elaborate signing ceremony at the Anastasia Samakhon throne hall in Bangkok. This was the location where the absolute monarchy had been monumentally transformed in 1932, leading to the possibility that King Vajiralongkorn is making an implicit statement of political intent that the limits on the powers of the monarchy should be reversed.
An idea of the agenda to reverse constitutional limits is already prevalent in Thailand. Even so, there is little tolerance for dissent, while the infamous lèse-majesté laws prohibit criticism of the monarchy. For example, pro-democracy protestor Jatuporn “New” Sae-Ung was sentenced to three years in prison in 2022 after authorities charged her with insulting the monarchy under Section 112 of the criminal code. Under this law, whoever defames, insults, or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years. Thus, legal reform is a necessity to stop and clear up the constitutional confusion between the infringement of free speech, peaceful assembly, and the lèse-majesté laws.
Many pro-democracy protestors, who have made attempts to draft a bill to be considered by Parliament, have been unsuccessful. As a result, there are increasing numbers of republicans within younger generations, who hold a weakening attachment and respect towards their monarchy, as they learn of the inequality it imposes upon their country. A famous pro-democracy activist, Arnon Nampa, pressured the main opposition Pheu Thai party to push for monarchical reform. ‘Reform’ is the key word here, as it is a key step into progressing towards being able to confidently say ‘abolish the monarchy.’ An evolution that is necessary as the institution continually defies democracy. Unfortunately, the Pheu Thai party has no such policies, even as many of their supporters want to see the monarchy reformed. So, despite the people urging attention for their cause and being supporters of the Pheu Thai party, the fact that it is not representative of their views demonstrates a significant legitimacy issue in Thailand’s so-called ‘representative’ democracy.
Unfortunately, the Pheu Thai Party potentially having the ability to increase their popularity with reform shows the extent to which the monarchy can influence politics to prevent opposition. If the party were able to advocate for such views, they would stop being a political party and thus lose the ability to change policy. Freedom of speech being infringed upon when suggested legal reforms involve criticism of the monarchy should be forbidden under one that is constitutional. There is a discrepancy, as the monarchy of Thailand does not claim to have absolute power. However, if the monarchy has an advantageous constitution, one different to the people, isn’t that the same as having absolute power?
Nevertheless, that is not to say all protestors agree. Royalists have made protests in the past year surrounding Amnesty International’s role in reporting human rights issues in Thailand. In this, they have been more successful than the democrats in the passing of legislation. The royalists managed to limit Amnesty International's authority to report and, with greater power to the military, the possibility of more pro-democratic protests has been hindered. So, before discussing change, democracy does require the will of the people and as of now it is split. Despite this split, it is hard to deny a human rights crisis in Thailand. While there continues to be the consistent undermining of democracy through monarchical power, the infringement of free speech and peaceful assembly, can Thailand still be called the ‘land of the free’?
To learn more about Arnon Nampa and other Human Rights Activists in Thailand, visit: https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/tag/arnon-nampa
Comments