Paul M. Handley

Hereditary rule in modern Southeast Asia, a case study

A few hereditary rulers in Southeast Asia still have the people's confidence. Late in 2010, shops closed in the Javanese town of Yogyakarta to protect the governing sultan from democratic elections. The reputation of the Malaysian sultans is mixed, but King Norodom Sihanouk is still highly respected despite various strange moves in his political career. Nothing however beats the prestige of Thailand’s King Bhumibol. Paul Handley, once a journalist for the Far Eastern Economic Review, tries to take a look behind the most carefully crafted royal image existing, an image that is protected by strict lèse-majesté laws, and is more modern and democratic than it deserves.

Bhumibol’s kingship came unexpectedly. American-born Bhumibol was raised in Lausanne by his partially Chinese commoner mother who, given the lack of a Buddhist temple in the Swiss city, occasionally went to church. He spent his youth in a Christian school studying French, Latin and German, and skiing. He came to the throne at 18 after the violent death of his brother at a time when the monarchy had lost nearly all prestige. Slowly he transformed from a jazz-loving modernist king into a dharmaraja, a selfless king who rules by the Buddhist code of dharma. His public image one of kindly benevolence and impassivity, based upon a public image of silent penitential pleasurelessness, which the Thais taken as a sign of spiritual greatness.

The Royal house needed this, because its power is solely based upon moral authority. The King’s image was carefully crafted by courtiers as a bulwark against liberal democracy. The courtiers had managed to take control over education, religion, and history. With these tools they convince a nation that consisted for 80% out of farmers whose life was centred around the wat and Buddhist ritual about the holy trinity of nation, religion, and king. All non-royals were removed from school history books, and the Royal house introduced or changed a series of rituals that stressed sacrality, wisdom, and goodness. It also included a calculated presentation of the king as an enlightened Buddhist full of upekkhā, equanimity.

As part of his training the young king had to learn arcane rituals, Buddhist philosophy and deep meditation techniques. Thai kingship is based upon complementary Indian cosmologies of Hindu-Brahmanism and Buddhism. They were based on a semi-divine warrior-king, the kasatriya, whose claim to absolute dynastic power was justified, after military might, by his blood and pure practice (page 17). To justify and sustain rule, a Thai king has to conduct himself in accordance with the dharma, the cosmic law. Not man but dharma rules the world. Humans only roll the wheel of dharma. Dharmais coterminous with truth, so pursuing it is pursuing pure virtue, the way to get there is through practice, just like the Buddha. This includes the acceptance of anicca (impermanence), practicing dana (almsgiving), selflessness, piety, charity, mercy, and rectitude. Hierarchy in Buddhist society is constructed upon levels of closeness to enlightenment. Those more virtuous are better suited to lead others. Karmic energy and merit can outlast mortal life, and birth as a royal is a sign of great karma and merit accumulated in earlier lives. The king then has to follow the raja dharma of 10 kingly virtues: charity, morality, sacrifice, integrity, gentleness, restraint, avoidance of hatred, nonviolence, patience and conciliation.

The Hindu-Brahman link that took root in Angkor considers the sovereign a sacral devaraja, or god-king. Buddhism recognises no real deity, but Hinduism has permanent self strength, or atman, the deity of the self. Understanding the self leads to understanding all, or enlightenment. If ultimate reality lies in the deity of the self, then at its highest level it can be a manifestation of the gods, notably Shiva or Vishnu. With the highest level of atman a Hindu king can be a god, and this allows the king to be more forceful. Devarajas automatically belong to the highest caste, so they automatically carry superior self-knowledge. The devaraja protects the earth and the cosmos, the seasons and the weather, giving fertility to soil and women. He harmonises earth with cosmos, by organising the kingdom as a miniature cosmos around the palace as a miniature Mount Meru. Brahmins play an important role in court rituals, e.g. in cutting the king's hair.

Consequently, hierarchy is of great importance, and is expressed among others through rajasap, the language for communicating with the king, who himself speaks in every day language. A formal address begins and ends with "may the power of the dust on the soles and the dust under the soles of your royal feet protect my head and the top of my head".

According to Mr. Hanley, King Bhumibol has grown to believe that has obtained "matchless wisdom in the ways of man and the cosmos". The King is genuinely personable and desirous of helping people. But political, social, and economic activities have to remain in the narrow realm of the throne's needs and interest. Democracy, constitutionalism, and capitalism only divide people, hence the quiet nod of the throne to an endless number of coups d'état.

To obtain the status of dharmaraja, the king had to be seen as the person most willing to sacrifice his assets, the most generous and unattached to his wealth. To finance this largesse, land in central Bangkok as well as other real estate was reclaimed, and investments were made through the Siam Commercial Bank (e.g. leading to the foundation of the Dusit Thani hotel group), and by selling telling the people that they would obtain merit by spending to the king. This also paid for the first development aid projects of the royal family. The royal family itself was weakened due to the tradition of marrying half sisters. On the political front, the King always had to share power with the military, that is usually ineffective and corrupt. Throughout time the King’s ideas move towards the paramount importance of national unity under the king, requiring diligence, selflessness, and duty to the immediate and national family. National unity would rise out of the pure intentions of the dharma. The king was no supporter of selfish capitalism, and modern bureaucracy and the legal system sabotaged national unity. He claimed that his own projects provided superior return on investment, and that the Thais were to docile in accepting their karma. Hard work should be a moral duty. The urbanites, he found, were too selfish, and the peasants too lazy (page 200). The King turns to a conservative, anti-democratic ideology, and visits monks known for magic and supernatural powers. He also still follows a daily schedule advised by royal astrologers (page 253).

It has no negative impact on his popularity among the people:

When the king falls ill, everybody flies about in panic; when the government falls, no one cares, because government is only entertainment.

In the mid 1980's the palace does not look so functional in a time of rising standards of education. The married and otherwise not very smart or beloved crown prince has five children with his commoner mistress, and rumours abound about Queen Sirikit advancing her family’s interests. Corruption is still rampant and the quality of government remains questionable, despite heavy involvement of the palace. The 1990’s are a financial boon for the royal coffers. Thanks to investments in real estate, Siam Cement, Siam Commercial Bank, and minority shares in lots of businesses from Michelin tires to Toshiba television tubes, its total market capitalisation increases to over $ 1 billion.

In 1992 the public balks at another coup and constitution with lots of power for military. But king supports the new government, and does not hold much of constitutions anyway:

Viewed through Buddhist lenses, they were impermanent, always mutable, and not worth fighting over

The king has consistently undermined institutions that support constitutional monarchies in the European style. He saw such institutions as competitors to his prestige. He even preferred corrupt and mercenary generals (the Thai army has one general per 300-350 troops) to professional non-political soldiers, let alone professional politicians. The King keeps competing with the government with his charities that help farmers, but also lectures bureaucrats and politicians publicly about solutions for Bangkok's notorious traffic problems. The Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 allows the King to claim the role of the nation's most important helper, although the government does more. Inspired by E.F. Schumacher’s “Small is Beautiful”, he also speaks out against capitalism and in favour of a "self-supporting economy", offering enough to survive. But it does not stop the King to require that the government injects some one billion dollars at unfavourable terms in saving Siam Commercial Bank.

The monarchy's resistance to change is unremarkable: a number of contemporary monarchies, including those of Brunei, Nepal, and the Middle East, have also stalled the modernisation of government. The Thai difference is that, rather than maintaining the monarchy's stature through mass coercion and repression, Bhumibol has employed language and more importantly visual statement to persuade his subjects that Thailand is culturally and corporeally dependent on a strong monarchy, and that Thais are better off for it. (page 429)

The author's narrative is strongly based upon the king, his relation with his prime minister, and the king's Hindu Buddhist ideology. Little broader context is given, e.g. regarding national economic policy (usually not the forte of military governments), causes for corruption etc. Although the core story is clear and supported by details ad nauseam, the broader context is marginalised. The first and last chapters are worth buying the book, as they give an interpretation of the workings of the Thai monarchy. The other chapters account for the king's reception of the many coups and constitutions, and are somewhat tedious to read.… (lisätietoja)