The Monarchy and the Constitution

During the 50 th anniversary celebrations of His Majesty the King’s accession to the throne, I was invited to give a speech entitled “The Monarchy and the Future of Siam” to commemorate that auspicious occasion. On 9 th June 2006, we’ll celebrate the king’s Diamond Jubilee. I shall therefore deliver the closing remarks today, which also happens to mark the anniversary of the king’s marriage.

The Thai words for “monarchy” (sathaban pramahakasat) and “constitution” (rathamanoon) bear the traces of foreign origination. The word sathaban is a fairly recent construction while the word rathamanoon made its appearance after the 1932 revolution. During the Meiji era, Japan promulgated the constitution in 1879 in order to exhibit its modernity. It was the first Asian country to do so. The Meiji constitution fully declared the absolutist nature of the country. The emperor was made sacred and divine, beyond reproach or criticism. The royal family was said to originate from the sun goddess. People must be willing to sacrifice their lives, whether or not for the emperor’s war. In other words, the constitution used the monarchy to oppress the citizens of Japan as well of other countries that the Japanese army invaded such as China, Korea, and Siam during WWII. When Japan was defeated in WWII—60 years ago—the American military occupiers, as the victor, rewrote its constitution. The monarchy lost its sacredness. The emperor became an ordinary person who could be criticized and who is under the constitution and other laws—like all Japanese.

The Meiji era coincided with the reign of King Rama V. The Siamese king wanted the monarchy to be the core of absolutism. This was also the political situation in Europe, such as in England, Prussia, Russia, and the Holy Roman Empire in Austria. Absolutism was however in the twilight of its power, but the Siamese ruling elites couldn’t grasp this fact.

King Rama V wanted to be an absolutist monarch like his European counterparts. He wanted to be respected by farangs. He did not want to be like other absolutist monarchs in Asia (with the exception of Japan) whose kingdoms lost their independence and sovereignty such as in Burma and Vietnam or like the emperor of China who did not succeed in adapting to modernity. He consulted with Prince Prisdang who was his contemporary and whom he felt was more modern in part because the latter was educated abroad—while King Rama V wasn’t. Therefore, the king believed that Prince Prisdang would give him good advice on how to transform the status of the Thai monarch so as to be respected by civilized nations in the world. He did not want to be seen as inferior to the European monarchs. If Siam had a legitimate form of government, the king reasoned, it would be able to escape from the clutch of colonialism.

Prince Prisdang made a big blunder by disseminating the king’s query as well as many important official documents pertaining to the Thai monarchy to a wider circle. As a result, several government officials had the opportunity to express their views. They wanted to have a constitution in which the power of the king is clearly limited and reduced. This political position emerged 3 years prior to the Meiji constitution.

The king’s reply to Prince Prisdang and others clearly expresses the view that he opposed the constitution or any reduction of royal power—even though England had started serious political reforms since 1832. Although England has no written constitution, that year clearly marked the reduction of royal power and that of the nobility. The House of Commons increasingly gained more importance vis-à-vis the House of Lords. But the Siamese ruling elites weren’t aware of this transition, except for the few who petitioned the king in 1885. In Siam, it seems that only Prince Bichitpreechakorn who openly supported the promulgation of a constitution that circumscribed the monarch’s power along democratic lines. (Here I am excluding commoners like Tianwan.) On the other hand, Prince Devawongse Varoprakarn, reflecting the king’s stance, fully supported absolutism.

Kullada Kesboonchoo Mead has clearly narrated the rise and decline of Thai absolutism in her book of the same name. Therefore, I will not retell it. Benjamin Batson has also recounted well the final years of absolutism in The End of Absolute Monarchy in Siam, which as been translated into the Thai language.

II

As mentioned earlier, when talking about the monarchy and the constitution, we must trace them to the thoughts of farangs. For example, the Meiji constitution emulated farangs in terms of absolutism combined with the military and political power like Germany at the time. Of course, this was done at the expense of liberty. The Japanese ruling elites argued that such form of government meant the restoration of royal power, transferring it from the shogun to the emperor. Various rituals and ceremonies were invented to flaunt the grandiosity of the monarchy—similar to those of European monarchs.

Despite looking confident and majestic, the Meji emperor was in reality weak. The succeeding Taisho emperor was mentally insane. And the Showa emperor was embroiled in numerous wicked things, politically and militarily, prior to WWII till Japan’s defeat in it. In the wake of WWII, had the Americans not protected the emperor, he would have been removed from power or put on trial as a war criminal. Since the Meiji constitution, the monarchy served violence for three reigns—politically, militarily, economically (e.g., capitalism), and even scientifically (in the name of modernity, progress, and scientism). All these meant serving injustice.

Compared to the Japanese monarchy the Siamese monarchy at least since the Fourth Reign served justice more than injustice. During the Meiji era, Buddhism was destroyed in Japan and the new ruling elites wanted to use violence like farangs and like shoguns. On the contrary, the Thai ruling elites relied on Buddhism and reconciliation as core values. Hence, King Rama IV stated on his coronation day thus: “I will rule with justice for the prosperity of the Siamese people.” This is not merely rhetoric for it derived from the substance of Buddhism, which is found in the Ten Royal Virtues and the Duties of a Great Ruler. The latter states as follows:

Can we see the Ten Royal Virtues and the Duties of a Great Ruler as forming the Buddhist constitution that has long co-existed with the monarchy?

Of course, the Thai monarchy in the past was also influenced by Brahmanism. According to the “Brahmic Constitution” the king upholds justice through the use of royal power. In other words, the king can issue punishment. But if the punishment is too severe or seen as arising from the king’s personal prejudices, then he will be seen as not acting according to royal virtues. The same logic applies if he’s too lenient. Thus, in the exercise of royal power the king must be just and impartial. The king must uphold the art of moral government as well as moral discourse. If he fails to act accordingly, he may be removed from power.

This art of moral government, which derived from Brahmanism, served as our original constitution. King Rama I ordered the mural painting of Ramakian at the Temple of the Emerald Buddha to reaffirm his commitment to being a just king: Rama serves as the role model. And all the kings of the Chakkri Dynasty are named after Rama. In his epic Ramakian the king compares the kingdom’s inhabitants to weapons, which are more powerful than the kingdom itself. The kingdom is an organic body. The heart is akin to the king while the body is the people. Both exist in harmony. If they are severed, the kingdom will disintegrate.

On the Buddhist side, King Rama IV stated that since he was invited to the throne by “the people” he would rule justly for the prosperity of the people. He would not act arbitrarily but would consult his chief ministers before embarking on important tasks. Should he fail to rule justly, he insisted that he could be legitimately removed.

Several Buddhist stories clearly show that if the king acts unjustly, he will be challenged by extra-monarchical power. For instance, King Samon acts unjustly toward Phra Sang Negrito, seeing the latter as uncultivated and barbaric. Therefore, God Indra has to intervene to settle the case. Or in the Vesantara Jataka, although the crown prince is just, the people see him as too lenient. Therefore, they mobilized to drive him away from the kingdom.

In Buddhism, the monarch is the representative of the kingdom or a mechanism of government based on power. On the other hand, the Sangha represents the Wheel of Dhamma, which advises the state on how to use power wisely and justly. If the Sangha upholds moral duties and is knowledgeable of world affairs (e.g., economics, politics, etc.), then it will help check and balance or “brake” the power of the state or the sovereign. During the time of King Naraesuan, Somdej Vanarat of Wat Pakaew admonished the king not to kill loyal generals. Or the cases of the Supreme Patriarch, Phra Phimontham, and Phra Buddhacharn who were incarcerated by the king of Thonburi, contributing to the latter’s subsequent downfall. Or the case of Somdej Toh of Wat Rakang who lit his lamp in midday and walked straight into the residence of the Regent to King Rama V in order to warn him to exercise power mindfully—not beyond the prerogatives of the young monarch.

III

The Thai triad of Nation, Religion, and King was invented during the Sixth Reign. It was based on the English dictum God, King, and Country. England used these three words to indoctrinate its people, making them willing to sacrifice their lives for their country. Farangs had engaged in numerous religious wars in the past—though they believed in the same God. European kings who fought one another (e.g., Germany and England) were also close relatives. And in the belligerent states, capitalists made enormous profits from the war.

Christmas Humphreys converted to Buddhism and served as the first president of the Buddhist Society in England. He became a Buddhist because he believed that the government deluded his brother to die for God, King, and Country during WWI.

Perhaps, we need to reinterpret “nation” not to mean a group of people who speak the same language, who live in the same territory, or who share the same ethnicity or nationality (which is illusionary) but to mean everyone who is alive and who is confronting happiness as well as suffering. As such, we will be supportive of one another and will be willing to serve those who are exploited and lack opportunity even though they belong to different nationalities, ethnicities, etc.

Religion does not mean that ours is the best or that since we are the majority in the land, our religion will be the national religion. Bhikkhu Buddhadasa warned us not to be led astray by religions or -isms that promote nationalism, militarism, capitalism, and so on. Rather, we should see our friends’ religions as not inferior to ours and as deserving respect. Even those who don’t have religion deserve our respect. We can all cooperate to overcome greed, hatred, and delusion as manifested in capitalism, militarism, and scientism.

The king may be seen as a deva who isn’t sacred. In fact, ordinary people can also be divine if they uphold divine virtues namely, having moral shame and moral fear. Moreover, if the king practices the Ten Royal Virtues and the Duties of a Great Ruler, the people will look upon him as a role model. The present king clearly stated that he is an ordinary human being who can say and do incorrect things. Hence, if citizens are loyal to the king they should criticize him.

The king and the monarchy shouldn’t be used as a tool to attack others, to foster egoism, or to portray how fervent a devotee of Nation, Religion, and King one is. The king also stated that any lese majeste case filed will negatively impact him. He once declared, “If a royal opinion cannot be challenged, then there’s no way for the Thai country to progress.”

Lamentably, those who are acting as a king above the king are charging others with lese majeste as if they haven’t listened to the royal speeches. The Asian Human Rights Commission, for instance, has protested the charge of lese majeste filed against the editor of Fah Diew Kun. Several books on or mentioning about the king have been banned from the kingdom, notably: The Devil’s Discus by Ray Kruger (1964), The Revolutionary King by William Stevenson (1999), and most recently The King Never Smiles by Paul M. Handley (2006). Aren’t these actions making a mockery of the country? Aren’t they contradicting the king’s message? Can books really be banned from the kingdom in this day and age?

Although the constitution qua the highest law of the land has existed in the kingdom since 1932, we still have not understood its substance; that is, the constitution must check and balance the state power by making it transparent and accountable. With contempt for justice and righteousness, we have ripped apart many constitutions. Worse, we’ve destroyed the constitution citing the protection of the monarchy as the pretext. Within this context, it seems as if the monarchy is antithetical to the constitution, to justice. Some military dictators deviously tried to make the monarchy a sacred institution beyond criticism. This smacks of black magic, which numbs the mind. Buddhism, however, is the art of being awakened based on nonviolence. This is at the core of morality, or the normal state of being, individually as well as collectively.

The monarchy and the constitution must therefore nourish one another for morality, for the normal state of being in society; that is, to overcome greed in the forms of capitalism and TNCs as well as imperialism. Put another way, capitalism and militarism (greed and hatred) have joined hands, strengthening each other, and employing the tactics of delusion.

The monarchy can help awaken us from these injustices. It can be seen as divine only if it adheres to divine virtues. And it must walk alongside the constitution, which cultivates justice through accountability and transparency, which entails openness to criticism.

Against the backdrop of imperialism, transnational capitalism, and terrorism in the globalizing world, if we know how to transform the monarchy into a morally courageous institution, we won’t have to kowtow to these illegitimate forces. The monarchy will be able to serve as one of our bulwarks. The monarchy along with the constitution will thus act as the Wheel of Dhamma, guiding the kingdom away from global capitalism and imperialism. The old Wheel of Dhamma, which was founded on the yellow robes, has long been defunct. It no longer serves as a dhammic leader. On the contrary, it has been servile to the monarchy and to consumerism. A morally courageous monarchy will serve as an umbrella for the people, turning their attention to the Sangha and perhaps rejuvenating the Buddhist Council. As a result, the Sangha may rely on the Dhamma-Vinaya as its constitution and will cooperate with the monarchy and morally courageous citizens to guide the kingdom away from contemporary forms of ignorance.

I hereby reaffirm the standpoint I made one decade ago: Any monarchy that is democratic, possesses limited power, and is mindful of the ethical norms of the contemporary world will treat the people as the ruler of the land, even if they are fallible. The monarchy will thus continue to exist under the constitution. But if the monarchy is arrogant and hardboiled, works closely with the military, conceitedly stands above the citizens, looks down on the people, and dislikes progressive intellectuals (who again are all fallible), royal power will be used to obstruct changes, thereby jeopardizing the viability of the monarchy. The monarchy will be sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Even the great Austrian, German, Russian, and Ottoman empires had crumbled.

I’d like to add one more thing. If the monarchy maintains a safe distance from TNCs and global capitalism its integrity will also be strengthened. I will end my address today with the memorable words of King Rama V. In a letter to his crown prince, he writes: “Being a king isn’t about being among the-haves, about taking advantage of others arbitrarily, about being able to take revenge on a hated person, and about eating and resting well. If you want the latter, there are two ways [to achieve it]: be a monk or a really wealthy person. A king must be poor and endures happiness and suffering, endures the love and the hatred that emerge spontaneously in the mind, and lacks laziness. The only benefit the king will reap is the recognition after his death that he is the protector of the family line and of the citizens from suffering. In power, the king must heed these two points more than other issues. If one has not made up one’s mind thus, I don’t see how the kingdom can be protected.”

The present king has conducted himself along these lines. As for the monarchy, if we have a good constitution and morally courageous individuals, no matter who’s the future ruler, we’ll be able to protect the monarchy—as King Rama V wanted.

[Translated from a Thai talk by Sulak Sivaraksa at Thammasat University on April 28, 2006]

printable version