Prospect's James Crabtree was full of praise for The Economist's unprecedented, biting articles on the Thai monarchy, "A Right Royal Mess." It's a piece that certainly suggests the Economist does not fear moving its South East Asia desk out of Bangkok. Yet the article ultimately misses the central point about the Thai monarchy—that it is a moral compass and a comfort for many Thais, a function never matched even by Queen Victoria in her imperial pomp.
Still, there's no doubt that it it was brave. And the response of the Thai authorities will be keenly watched. Some 30-odd people have been charged under Thailand's severe lèse majesté laws (which make insulting the monarchy a criminal offence) over the last couple of years, some for saying far less than the Economist just has. A new government might try to burnish its patriotic credentials with some Brit bashing. Those Thai intellectuals, foreign observers, journalists and academics who find the monarchy curious must be delighted.
Bravery aside, there is a strong whiff of condescension in the Economist's tone: "It cannot be good for a country to subscribe to a fairy-tale version of its own story" it says. Meanwhile King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 81 last Friday, "risks leaving behind a country unprepared for life without father." The Economist gives the monarchy credit for nothing: apparently it is an irrational institution, out of time and of scant utility. Yet Thailand's monarchy coexisted quite comfortably with civilian prime ministers for most of the period between 1980 until a couple of years after Thaksin came to power in 2001. The Economist seems not to have understood that many Thais hate Thaksin for his strange megalomania; an election victory does not licence despotism.
Also, the Economist takes it for granted that King Bhumibol, who inherited the throne in 1946 as an 18-year-old, has developed formidable manipulative skills that have shaped and slowed Thailand's development. Yet there is really little hard evidence that the King has—at the mundane political level—been a proactive leader. It can often be equally argued that the King "goes with the flow." No doubt anyone who would prefer a managerial head of state will be disappointed by this. But to ignore the monarch's role as the moral centre of Thai nation, the guarantor of its unity and prolongation, smacks of wilful prejudice. One could spend several lifetimes debating the place of the palace in Thai society, but there is every reason to suspect that a monarchy-free Thailand would be a lesser place. And not even, in fact, Thailand.
Thailand is poised to evolve into a more accountable society, but how Thais choose to arrange themselves is their business. China, India, Japan and South Korea are currently engaged in an economically pointless race to put a man on the moon, at a cost of at least $100 million per country. According to the International Herald Tribune, they are doing it for prestige, soft power and national unity. Where are the "bold" articles knocking them for outmoded priorities and the misallocation of resources? Or it it a case of golden robes bad, shiny technology good?
The Thai monarchy is so central to life that it has been used injudiciously as a cosh by all sides to beat up their opponents. The green left, for instance, uses the King's somewhat ethereal theory of a "sufficiency economy" to support their environmentalism. The recent junta used the same theory to justify a break with "Thaksinomics." And the Economist is certainly correct to suggest that opponents of the populist former prime minister are doing royalty no favours by claiming to be fighting a deeply controversial campaign on its behalf.
The monarchy may well withdraw into a more constitutional role (albeit its reach is as much in the imagination as in reality) after the passing of the hugely experienced King Bhumibol. The private character of the other royals is endlessly debated in Thailand: but it is in many ways irrelevant. And as long as the less popular son performs the appropriate rituals in a dignified way things may be okay. Among other things, this is also why so many smart Brits underestimate the staying power of the British monarchy. It is the institution, not the holder, that ultimately counts.
Still, there's no doubt that it it was brave. And the response of the Thai authorities will be keenly watched. Some 30-odd people have been charged under Thailand's severe lèse majesté laws (which make insulting the monarchy a criminal offence) over the last couple of years, some for saying far less than the Economist just has. A new government might try to burnish its patriotic credentials with some Brit bashing. Those Thai intellectuals, foreign observers, journalists and academics who find the monarchy curious must be delighted.
Bravery aside, there is a strong whiff of condescension in the Economist's tone: "It cannot be good for a country to subscribe to a fairy-tale version of its own story" it says. Meanwhile King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 81 last Friday, "risks leaving behind a country unprepared for life without father." The Economist gives the monarchy credit for nothing: apparently it is an irrational institution, out of time and of scant utility. Yet Thailand's monarchy coexisted quite comfortably with civilian prime ministers for most of the period between 1980 until a couple of years after Thaksin came to power in 2001. The Economist seems not to have understood that many Thais hate Thaksin for his strange megalomania; an election victory does not licence despotism.
Also, the Economist takes it for granted that King Bhumibol, who inherited the throne in 1946 as an 18-year-old, has developed formidable manipulative skills that have shaped and slowed Thailand's development. Yet there is really little hard evidence that the King has—at the mundane political level—been a proactive leader. It can often be equally argued that the King "goes with the flow." No doubt anyone who would prefer a managerial head of state will be disappointed by this. But to ignore the monarch's role as the moral centre of Thai nation, the guarantor of its unity and prolongation, smacks of wilful prejudice. One could spend several lifetimes debating the place of the palace in Thai society, but there is every reason to suspect that a monarchy-free Thailand would be a lesser place. And not even, in fact, Thailand.
Thailand is poised to evolve into a more accountable society, but how Thais choose to arrange themselves is their business. China, India, Japan and South Korea are currently engaged in an economically pointless race to put a man on the moon, at a cost of at least $100 million per country. According to the International Herald Tribune, they are doing it for prestige, soft power and national unity. Where are the "bold" articles knocking them for outmoded priorities and the misallocation of resources? Or it it a case of golden robes bad, shiny technology good?
The Thai monarchy is so central to life that it has been used injudiciously as a cosh by all sides to beat up their opponents. The green left, for instance, uses the King's somewhat ethereal theory of a "sufficiency economy" to support their environmentalism. The recent junta used the same theory to justify a break with "Thaksinomics." And the Economist is certainly correct to suggest that opponents of the populist former prime minister are doing royalty no favours by claiming to be fighting a deeply controversial campaign on its behalf.
The monarchy may well withdraw into a more constitutional role (albeit its reach is as much in the imagination as in reality) after the passing of the hugely experienced King Bhumibol. The private character of the other royals is endlessly debated in Thailand: but it is in many ways irrelevant. And as long as the less popular son performs the appropriate rituals in a dignified way things may be okay. Among other things, this is also why so many smart Brits underestimate the staying power of the British monarchy. It is the institution, not the holder, that ultimately counts.
