Essay title: What is the relationship between monarchy and democracy in Thailand?

Word count: 2,994 words

Introduction

Politically speaking, Thailand is a special case in Pacific Asia. For decades it has enjoyed political stability[1] thanks to monarchical politics, thus based on the prominence of the power of the King; yet, since 1932 and the end of absolute monarchy, the country has experienced nineteen coups, rebellions or coup attempts, id est a coup every four years on average. In 1932, military officers abolished the absolute monarchy, moving to a constitutional monarchy. The period that followed was then troubled for monarchs: after signing Thailand’s first constitution in 1932, King Prajadhipok exiled, then abdicated in 1935; later, successor Ananda Mahidol returned as monarch to Thailand in 1945 to be found shot dead in the Grand Palace in Bangkok in 1946[2]. During that period, the military establishment ruled the country; introducing a relatively modern constitution, it wished to maintain monarchy as an institution but with little power; accordingly, it did not let strong leaders rule the country.

Bhumibol Adulyadej succeeded as King in 1946 at 18 years old and, after finishing his studies, came back to reign in Thailand in 1950. Having lived nearly his whole life out of Thailand[3], and accessing the throne under long-established military rule, he began his reign as a weak king, holding no real power. Since then, Thailand has become a relatively stable democracy and the one who’s called Rama IX according to the Chakri dynasty of Thailand has reigned, being still on the throne in 2009.

Therefore, it can be questioned how, in a stable country that has though experienced many coups, monarchy and democracy have cohabited. What are their mutual place and role and do they intertwine sometimes? How are they interlinked and what is the nature of their relationship?

To analyse that connection, let’s first try to formally establish the