Font size: 
Former U.S. President Harry Truman who popularized the phrase, “The buck stops here,” said in his memoirs, “If there is one basic element in our Constitution, it is civilian control of the military.” He also said, in a statement that applies worldwide, “Secrecy and a free, democratic government don’t mix.” He spoke, of course, under a democratic government.
In Thailand, if there is one basic element of the constitution, whichever constitution you are talking about, is the element that “Thailand adopts a democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.” This exact phrase appears in both the abrogated 1997 Constitution and the 2007 version.
The inclusion of this charter provision is clearly designed to retain Thailand’s identity as a monarchy, and to initiate measures to protect the monarch. Yet, it is article 3 that perhaps further complicates subsequent arguments as to whether the king has a role in government, and by extension, whether the military is justified in stepping in when it is perceived that such takeover of civilian government is in agreement with the king’s wishes.
Article 3 reads, “The sovereign power belongs to the Thai people. The King as Head of State shall exercise such power through the National Assembly, the council of Ministers and the Courts in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.”
So, the king exercises sovereign power over people. Just how this can occur seems a mystery. After all, if the power of the people is sovereign, that means it is above all else.
If Thailand is a democratic regime then sovereign power of the people must be exercised through clear democratic processes. This cannot be done when the military is in control, or waiting behind the scenes to do someone else’s bidding, as it regularly appears to be the case.
Thailand’s military first “stepped in” to take over an absolute monarchy and in 1932 that monarchy became ostensibly constitutional. Since then the Thai military has stepped in and removed civilian governments some dozen and a half times. Generally, it is widely believed that it has done so with the foreknowledge, acquiescence or even outright participation and planning by the country’s monarchy and Privy Council members.
Prior to Thaksin Shinawatra’s Sep. 19, 2006 removal by the military and by what most observers see as a sympathetic monarchy, Thai society was split between those who wanted traditionalism to continue and those who wanted a significant change to take place. The latter wanted a truly elected parliament and democratic government that would no longer involve the country’s monarch in the affairs of the state except ceremonial issues.
In his review article titled, “A Book, the King and the 2006 Coup,” writer Kevin Hewison adeptly reviewed Paul Handley’s book, “The King Never Smiles.” The 2006 coup was, according to Hewison, a royal military coup, given the obvious claims by the military at first that Thaksin had committed lèse majesté and top military leaders at the time saying they were loyal to the king. To date lèse majesté charges against Thaksin have not been substantiated.
The theme of lèse majesté, however, has become more popular in Thailand than the pet rock or hoola-hoop craze. The newly elected government promises to protect the monarchy and to take stronger action against those, including websites that have insulted the king and royal family members. This professed desire to protect the beloved institution has trumped Thaksin’s popularity among the electorate, as it was designed to do.
People in Thailand have been conditioned, and it may well be the truth, that Thaksin was attempting to undermine the power of the monarchy. That he failed had to do with lack of homework. Like most dictators, no matter their ilk, he was greedy and failed to make a good judgment of the reactions that would be produced from his extreme corruption and cronyism.
The persistent military interventions in Thailand that have taken place over the past sixty years or so were not solely for the benefit of the military. Thailand has been ruled, and will continue to be ruled, by a loose confederation of elite interests that will not accept a transition from pseudo-feudalism to a genuine democratic form of government where no single entity, save the people, have absolute power. This is where the basic problem lies, made more difficult to solve by the degree of control of the country’s media whether public or in its educational system.
This article began with an introduction of the argument whether a military takeover of a civilian government could ever be justified, even in Thailand. The answer sadly rests with which side of the fence you are on.
Throughout history, military takeovers of democratically elected (at the beginning of their terms) governments have taken place, often because those governments abused their people beyond the ability of even the most callous to remain silent.
In Thailand, it seems merely a question of how long elitist callousness will continue, which has been there since a long time. And the future looks even bleaker, with militant royalist sentiments on the rise.
--
(Frank G. Anderson is the Thailand representative of American Citizens Abroad. He was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer to Thailand from 1965-67, working in community development. A freelance writer and founder of northeast Thailand's first local English language newspaper, the Korat Post – www.thekoratpost.com – he has spent over eight years in Thailand "embedded" with the local media. He has an MBA in information management and an associate degree in construction technology. ©Copyright Frank G. Anderson.)
