Five days after the National Peace-keeping Council (NPKC) overthrew the democratically elected Chatichai Choonhavan government on 23 February 1991, the Asian Wall Street Journal came to interview me-at that time, the local dailies were too afraid to do so. In the interview I insisted on the following points. Thais in general would initially support the new rulers after the removal of the previous government. They wouldn't see it as unjust to usurp power illegitimately. However, three months later, the people would begin to get dissatisfied with the new government. After six months, they would start criticizing and denouncing the new government. They might even feel nostalgic for the good old days under the previous regime, often forgetting its sins or flaws. This is either because the new government is really worse than the one before; or the government in power is often seen as worse than the one out of power. This has long been the case.

One month after the NPKC coup d'etat, I passed by Los Angeles, USA. The Thai newspaper in L.A. is called Siam Media. And the Association of Thai Journalists in California invited me to give a talk on Thai politics, which I gladly complied. The event took place on 22 March, and it was news in Siam Media. Subsequently, Matichon newspaper in Bangkok sent someone to inform me that I should not criticize the NPKC abroad. (Before that, someone big in Matichon who was close to someone big in the NPKC had also told me not to publicly oppose the NPKC.) I thanked the informer for the message, but replied that it was an impossible demand.

Three months after the coup, I was invited to give a talk along with Mr. Phoovadon Songprasert at Thammasat University. Only one local daily (and in this case it happened to be an English one) reported on what I had said in a very brief manner. Moreover, Phoovadon's views, which I consider to be better than mine, were not reported at all. Subsequently, some thugs even beat him up.

Prior to that, I had been a Matichon columnist. At the time the standpoint of the newspaper was that the NPKC was a just dictatorship. I held the opposite view, however. Therefore, I resigned from the newspaper-though I remained close to its boss.

Six months after the coup, I was once again invited to give a talk at Thammasat University. The talk was entitled "Six Months of the NPKC: A Regression in Thai Democracy." General Suchinda Kraprayoon lodged an anti-defamation suit against me because of this talk. Moreover, he also charged me with lese majeste because of this speech.

When the Anand Panyarachun government, which was set up by the NPKC, reached its 100 days, a Time magazine reporter asked me for my impression of the prime minister, the Cabinet, and the NPKC. I used a lot of time to express my frank views in great details. The reporter said my views were interesting but it wouldn't be appropriate to publish them in the magazine. He said that thus far he had only heard about the positive aspects of the new government from the other interviewees; e.g., that it was honest, sincere, and not corrupt. On the contrary, I told him that honesty is merely the most rudimentary foundation for government. The ruler must also be capable. Preserving the status quo simply means that the rich will get richer and the poor, poorer. The natural environment will also be increasingly devastated. This kind of government cannot be said to be a good one. As for the then prime minister he didn't want to be hated. He smiled a lot and appeared sincere in his willingness to help solve problems. But he wasn't able to tackle the major problems at all because he was dominated by the NPKC in almost every respect. The NPKC was also getting increasingly arrogant and more corrupt than the corrupt ministers and MPs in the previous administration. Thus I argued that it was impossible for Time to praise the NPKC.

All these referred to the past. To see whether or not history repeats itself we now have to turn to the 19 September coup, to compare and contrast the situation in 1991 with that of 2006.

In 1991 I had planned to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Siamese democracy in the kingdom. At the time, it seemed that neither the universities nor the political parties in the kingdom were interested in this matter. But a little caveat must be added here. Throughout the planning phase of the celebration, I closely worked with Apisit Vejajiva. He called me "The Great Su," who was superior to "Big Su" (i.e., Suchinda Kraprayoon). However, he withdrew from the project when he became a member of the Democratic Party. I wasn't surprised by his move. After all, the Democratic Party collaborated with the coup makers in 1947 to crush the substance of Thai democracy. Eventually, "The Great Su" had to flee the country because of "Big Su." The celebration ultimately took place in Chicago, USA. It attracted a large gathering of Thais and other nationals in the US. Some came from Canada and even From Siam. This year, Thai democracy will reach its 75th anniversary. Should there be a special ceremony to observe this auspicious occasion?

In the wake of the 19 September coup, will I face numerous charges for speaking out and for my political activism? Will I be trialed for giving this talk? I don't know. But at least a friend in the Prime Minister's Office told me to put my political activism on a hold at the moment. This somehow reminds me of the NPKC days.

Enough with the digression. Now I will get into the substance of my talk.

The term "coup d'etat" means the seizure of State power. To my knowledge, the Thai word for coup d'etat or rat praharn first appeared after Phin Choonhavan led his military gang to overthrow a democratic government on 8 November 1947. This date marks the downfall of democracy in Siam. When Sarit Thanarat became premier, he destroyed all trappings of democracy by abolishing the constitution and parliament on 20 October 1958.

In the destruction of democracy, lies gradually take the place of truths. Virtuous individuals are killed, especially those who want to serve the people. Good folks are discredited or demonized-their images massacred. The justice system operates as a tool to destroy political opponents.

8 November 1947 and 20 October 1958 are days which will live in infamy. Thai democracy began to emerge on 24 June 1932. The event itself could be seen as a coup d'etat undertaken for the people. At the time, it was simply called "the change of government"-that is, the transition from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy. Prior to 1932, the government of Siam was largely a dynastic affair; it can also be interpreted as a series of dynastic struggles. Government was about benefiting the members of the ruling class. Changes in the composition of the ruling class were made to keep things by and large the same. Through religious and cultural means, the governed were held under a spell to accept inequality.

In a similar vein, Saichon Satyanurak has made the following observation, which deserves to be quoted at length:

The belief that a hierarchical society is inherently good is linked to the assertion that the centralization of power in the hands of a single person is the form of governance most suitable for the kingdom; that is, it is the "Thai form of governance." Mainstream intellectuals explained that blood and Buddhism make the ruling elites virtuous and principled. According to this logic, the king should exercise unaccountable power, and if there should be checks and balances, it is the king who should check and balance the power of his officials. Mainstream intellectuals also tried to convince the people to believe that because of Buddhism the Thai state and society are compassionate. Those in the upper rungs of the social hierarchy are inclined to treat their subordinates ethically. The idea is that the superior-subordinate relationship is like the one between the parent and the child. These are just some of the attempts to make social inequality respectable or legitimate. I realize that mainstream intellectuals come in various shades and hues, some emphasizing on blood, ethnism, etc. more than other considerations. But they share a common basic assumption: human beings were not born equally good and capable, and they lack equal capacity to learn or become ‘cultivated.' Therefore, only the members of the upper-class are morally principled. And so they should also serve as the ruling elites. The absolute majority of citizens are trapped in a cycle of ignorance, poverty, and suffering, beseeching the compassion and tutelage of the ruling class.

In the hands of mainstream intellectuals, the Thai country and society are essentially good, or goodness is an essentialized quality of the Thai country and society-i.e., goodness as "Thai-ness." Therefore, and this is a bit redundant, the Thai kingdom is good because of Thai-ness. As long as the purity of Thai-ness is maintained and protected, the kingdom will remain good indefinitely. Following this train of logic, any unwanted change or problem in the kingdom is largely the result of the betrayal of Thai-ness or the absorption of undesirable foreign elements.

Mainstream intellectuals pay a lot of attention to justice but it is a form of justice without equality. Put another way, equality is only an intra-group condition. Members of the ruling class are equal, but they are superior to the majority of the population. (Equality also refers to the equal right to be unequal.) Given this condition, the kingdom's ruling elites are the source of justice in society. As for liberty, mainstream intellectuals stress that there's already ample liberty in Thai-ness: the liberation of the mind through the practice of the Dhamma.

I feel that the way the 19 September coup makers think is like that of the abovementioned mainstream Thai intellectuals. When Sarit came to power in 1958, he clearly stated that the democratic and parliamentary systems were forms copied from the West-and hence unsuitable for Thai society. The dictator argued that the country should instead be governed along the lines of King Rama V. One of his political advisors even privately asserted that the dictator was a reincarnation of King Rama V. To the public, Sarit was portrayed as a sovereign who faithfully upheld the form of government employed during the Sukhothai period. The mass media and education system were used cultivate this image....

A few years prior to the 1932 Revolution, King Rama VII explained that although his father, King Rama V, did not think that it was necessary for Siam to have a constitution, a political "revolution" as opposed to an "evolution" took place during the Fifth Reign.

Seen in a positive light, the political revolution during the Fifth Reign entailed the abolishment of slavery and the creation of the modern state with the monarchy holding absolute power. The Front Palace was subdued. And the role of the sangha (despite its inherently democratic features) as a moral counterbalance to the Wheel of State was radically undermined. The only major counterbalance to Siamese absolutism was Western imperialism in the region.

The only Buddhist monk to see that Dhammic Socialism is a democracy beyond the Western form was Bhikkhu Buddhadasa. The only lay Buddhist to understand that democracy, which was adopted from the West, had to be "Dhammified" was Pridi Banomyong. The two had dialogued for hours on several occasions. Many of the ideas expressed in their conversations can be seen as hinting toward the Gross National Happiness concept which is gaining some currency at present. I don't think the rulers today-in the cabinet, the parliament, and the CNS-are capable enough to fathom the substance of the ideas expressed by these two wise men....

Initially, the organizer of this talk wanted me to share my views on the royal power and the constitution. Since I think the present rulers do not understand the complex relationship between the monarchy and the constitution, my talk will be in vain. To protect and preserve the monarchy under the constitution, the ruling elites must be morally courageous and willing to criticize the monarchy honestly and sincerely. They must not shun from going against the stream of populism if it is illegitimate. I've touched on this issue many times1, and therefore I will not unpack my ideas here again. At least, after reading one of my English articles on this issue, John Ralston Saul wrote to me thus: "I've just read your April 2006 talk-the Monarchy and the Constitution. It is a very fine piece, which lays out the sort of parameters of justice with which so many countries and systems have struggled. In historic term, it is the perfect argument for a constitutional monarchy. People in other countries could learn from this approach. "

To sum up, every coup d'etat in Siam was a poison to democracy, the people, and the monarchy, except for the 1932 coup, which transformed the kingdom from absolutism to constitutional monarchy.... The 19 September coup follows the rule and not the exception even if it was launched under the pretext of protecting constitutional monarchy. As mentioned above, the present rulers have only the slightest idea about the intricate workings of a constitutional monarchy-or to be more precise about the interdependence between the monarchy, democracy, and the constitution. They also lack moral courage and do not promote a culture of constructive criticism and independent thought at every level, failing to see that this is the very foundation of a democracy. The ruling elites must also be sincere and humble. They must be willing to learn from people from every walk of life, especially the poor at the grassroots-not only from businessmen, technocrats, and the privileged. The objective is to learn from one another in order to find and tackle the root causes of suffering....

It must be clear that the monarchy and the king are not one and the same. As a saying goes, "The King is dead, long live the King." When a monarch passed away, s/he is survived by the institution. For this to happen, the monarchy must be the national symbol. For it to be the national symbol it must be neutral, and consequently it will be seen as the natural arbiter in any grave conflict. In a democracy, the monarch necessarily lacks power, in particular military power. This is because the military is a symbol of dosacarita or hatred. The monarch and the monarchy must be rendered accountable. They shouldn't be allowed to act in a secretive manner. The law must make these clear. But equally important, there must be morally courageous individuals who are willing to criticize the monarchy. Otherwise, it may turn out to be dictatorial and absolutist.

If power represents hatred then wealth represents greed. The monarch must maintain a distance from all the royal possessions; e.g., in the hand of the Crown Property Bureau. If greed is able to take root in the monarchy or those serving the monarchy, the institution will be mired in the quicksand of capitalism and consumerism. And it will be highly vulnerable to manipulations by politicians, military figures, and investors. As King Rama V wisely informed his first crown prince, a good monarch is poor and loves the people more than himself.

Worse than greed and hatred is ignorance or delusion. If society is morally half-baked and obsessed with the magical and the divine, it will not be able to free itself from delusions. The monarchy must be enlightened. It must illuminate the way to attaining holistic as opposed to fragmented knowledge. It must not inhibit the flow of various streams of knowledge. It must allow dissent and criticism-the voicing of oppositional views. For this to happen, the monarchy must not be allowed to turn into something sacred and other-worldly, beyond reproach and criticism. Criticisms will help narrow the gap in terms of privileges enjoyed by the monarchy. They will help cultivate accountability and responsibility on the part of the monarchy.

Let's now turn to England as an example. England started to become a democracy in 1832; that is, 100 years before Siam. At the time, Queen Victoria was not really happy with democracy, but she did not wield much power. She even opposed various trappings of modernity such as equal rights for women. Queen Victoria despised William Gladstone, the highly capable and to date the longest serving prime minister in England. Nevertheless, Gladstone tried his best to protect the monarchy. But the Queen did not think highly of him.

Succeeding Queen Victoria was King Edward VII. He was a playboy and often breached the third precept of Buddhism. He was heavily in debt, due to gambling and women hunting. But it was a well kept secret. The masses did not know about it. At the time the idea that there are things the masses should not know or are not supposed to know was still acceptable. This belief had already fallen out of currency in the civilized world.

It was only during the reign of King George V and Queen Mary that the image of the British royal family was successfully reconstructed to become more homely and down to earth-like the family of an ordinary couple. Not surprisingly, they were well admired by the English public. Of course, there were people who did not see any virtue in having a monarchy. For instance, during the 25th anniversary of the king's accession to the throne, many banners greeted the royal couple on the road from Buckingham Palace to St. Paul's Cathedral, condemning "25 Years of Exploiting the Poor", "25 Years of Widening the Gap between the Rich and the Poor", and "25 Years of Appalling Colonialism"....

In a democracy, the more the monarch is like a commoner and the more s/he is simple, open-minded, and willing to listen to criticisms, the more secure and long lasting the monarchy will become. At the very least, the monarchy has to be neutral in order to guarantee its continual existence. King George VI is a good example. He lacked leadership qualities. He was also a stammerer. But at his side was a queen who was not inclined toward the Wrong Way. And both truly sided with the people, and hence they were widely respected. On the other hand, his brother thought that he was smarter than all the politicians in the country. Fortunately, he eventually abdicated.

As for the present queen, she may have tilted too heavily toward the conservatives. In any case, she seemed willing to alter her position or view in the light of the changing public mood and situation. She realized that a monarchy that is impervious to the people's wishes will not last long....

During WWII, the Kingdom of Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany. The Danish king insisted that the Star of David be also pinned on his chest; that is, Hitler should also send him to the concentration camps. Hitler despite his immense power could not trump over the king of a small state whose only power was based on virtue and justice. Another monarch who should be commended is the King of Spain. Although the Spanish monarch is a man of the navy, he did not side with the military when it attempted to overthrow the civilian government. He sided with the force of democracy, earning to the respect of everyone who sees democracy more important than short-term gains through dictatorial means.

In Cambodia, the monarchy seems to be reducible to one figure, King Norodom Sihanouk. He has played both positive and negative roles. He seems to be equally loved as well as hated. Though he has abdicated for his son to succeed as the new king, it is not clear whether or not the monarchy will survive after Sihanouk passed away.

I hope the audience will be able to draw their own conclusions after listening to the examples raised above.

Excerpted from Sulak Sivaraksa's speech delivered on 19 January 2007 at the Faculty of Economics, Thammasat University