CFR Presents

Asia Unbound

CFR experts give their take on the cutting-edge issues emerging in Asia today.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


Thai Royalty Becomes More Openly Involved in Politics

by Joshua Kurlantzick
January 21, 2014

Anti-government protesters celebrate under portraits of Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej and Queen Sirikit as they enter the area near the Government house in Bangkok on December 3, 2013. (Damir Sagolj/Courtesy Reuters) Anti-government protesters celebrate under portraits of Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej and Queen Sirikit as they enter the area near the Government house in Bangkok on December 3, 2013. (Damir Sagolj/Courtesy Reuters)


Despite officially being a constitutional monarchy and supposedly no different than the monarchies of Britain, the Netherlands, or modern-day Japan, Thailand’s royal family has, during the reign of King Bhumibhol Adulyadej, always been far more closely involved in Thai politics than any constitutional monarch would be. However, until the past decade, the royal family usually conducted its interventions behind the scenes. The king and his allies normally acted behind at least a veil of deniability, so that in times of crisis, the king could potentially play the role of mediator and neutral-broker.

A recent post on New Mandala by Professor Pavin Chachavalpongpun of Kyoto University highlights how, over the past decade, as the king’s health has declined and speculation has erupted about the eventual royal succession and its implications for Thai politics, other members of the royal family have become openly political, a contrast from the past. Prof. Pavin’s essay analyzes the barely concealed online political discourse of Princess Chulabhon, who in recent weeks has appeared in a wide variety of social media touting her disapproval of the government and support of demonstrators in the streets of Bangkok. Her activities follow on the heels of Queen Sirikit’s open rhetorical support of the previous generation of anti-Shinawatra/royalist/Yellow Shirt protesters—the type of open political involvement that supposedly has infuriated the king.

As Pavin notes, along with Princess Chulabhon,  Queen Sirikit “attended the controversial funeral of Nong Bo, a yellow-shirt member. In that event, Sirikit praised the courage of Nong Bo who met with an untimely death while participating in the royalist mob led by the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). A large number of red shirts were enraged by the obvious partiality of the Queen and Chulabhorn. That event now serves as ‘National Enlightenment Day.’”

To some observers of Thai politics, the open politicization of the royal family is a disaster—a shift that further undermines civilian, democratic leaders and reduces the monarchy’s ability to play a neutral, mediating, above-politics function. But, in the long run, this politicization, combined with the eventual reign of a king who enjoys far less public trust and love than Rama IX, could actually be a net positive for Thai democracy. As the monarchy loses some degree of public trust, other democratic institutions eventually will have to assume the role of mediator and crisis-solver, and a real constitutional monarchy can develop in Thailand.

Post a Comment 3 Comments

  • Posted by Raja M. Ali Saleem

    Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Rama IX maybe the last king revered by the Thais. House of Chakri that has been an important pillar of Thai nationalism will lose its preeminence soon. The question is will this be done without major bloodshed between undemocratic/royalist/military and democratic forces.

  • Posted by Eric

    Its nice to imagine that some democratic institution will magically fill the void left by Bhumibol, but I don’t see it happening. His authority comes from many generations of ancestors who ruled Thailand, and you can’t easily rebuild institutions like that.

  • Posted by Ronnie

    Well, I sort of agree wit Eric. The king in Thailand has made it clear through his work that he wants the rural people to be happy and self-sufficient. But why didn’t the Democrats ever do that? Why didn’t Abhisit or Chuan Leekpai or Adnan ever pay attention to that? I guess we need to understand that the outer ring of this hi-So system have a self-interest in keeping the Thaksin family at arms’ length – and has no interest in the majority aspirations. And of course both of the above are the nuclei of the present trouble. Good luck to the hard working people of Thailand in their struggle against the corrupt rich families who support an end to democracy!

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required