It was a sight that would once have been unthinkable. On 14th October, a car carrying the queen and heir apparent of Thailand was mobbed by protesters as it passed through the streets of Bangkok. The following day, the government banned political gatherings of five or more people and the publication of news and information that could threaten national security. Their drastic reaction revealed the degree of worry in the Thai establishment over recent protests that have targeted the monarchy, challenging an institution unused to criticism. How it reacts will determine the country’s future.
The events on 14th October were part of a longer protest movement that continues until today. Over the last week, thousands have gathered in Bangkok to protest. They are calling for the resignation of the Prime Minister, a more democratic constitution and, most significantly, curbs on the powers of the monarch.
The problems stretch back to 2014, when after a political crisis, the military staged a coup d’etat, the 18th in the country’s modern history (by one count). Elections were held in 2019 and returned the Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha (who also led the 2014 coup) to power. Despite allegations of unfairly benefitting pro-military factions, they yielded surprisingly good results for the Future Forward Party – which was dissolved by court order this Febrary. In response, numerous young people took to the streets. After petering out in March, the movement was reignited in July and has continued ever since.
More recently, the protests began to target the current King, Maha Vajiralongkorn. Traditionally in Thailand, the monarch is considered to be above politics – a symbol of stability and continuity. In a country that has lived through 20 constitutions and numerous coups, it is clear to see why that was important. However, of late that norm has eroded.
In the 2019 elections, the King encouraged citizens to vote for “good people” – which was widely seen as meaning Mr Prayuth’s party. What’s more, in 2017 when the military ruling council proposed a constitution that was ratified by referendum (in which it was illegal to campaign against it), the King requested certain changes – an unprecedented step that took even the military by surprise. The changes generally expanded his powers, for instance making it possible to rule from abroad – an issue that was particularly close to his heart.
The King is generally a rather unpopular figure. In large part this stems from his apparent lack of interest in running his country. He spends most of his time in Germany, rather than Thailand. By contrast his father, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, rarely left Thailand over his 70-year rule. In fact, his father’s legacy goes some way to explain Vijralongkorn’s lack of popular appeal. Simply put, his father was adored by the Thai people to the point where he was considered semi-divine. Those are big shoes to fill. The current King has seemingly given up any pretensions of living up to that ideal.
Despite his soiled reputation, Vijralongkorn has until now not faced widespread popular backlash. People may criticise him in private, but that is all they will do. This is because the Thai monarchy is protected by some of the strongest Lèse-majesté laws in the world. That means that any criticism of the King, Queen, heir apparent or regent is a crime punishable with up to 15 years imprisonment. That makes the protests, which have begun to call for curbs on the monarch’s power, particularly daring.
There are two ways the monarchy could choose to react. They could accept the protesters’ demands, reform the constitution, refashion the role of the King and announce new elections. This is, however, unlikely to happen. The other option is to crack down on the protesters, as happened in the 1970s, when student protests flared up across the country. The brutal repression that followed saw around 3,000 arrests and between 40 and 100 deaths.
There is, however, also a third option. The government could play for time, allow the protests to take place and let them peter out of their own accord. This seems to be the option the Thai establishment has chosen. However, the taboo on criticising the monarchy has been shattered. After four years of disinterest in his country’s affairs that have made him deeply unpopular, particularly among young people, it is hard to see how the King can continue to rule as he has unchallenged. As much as he may be hoping for the movement to disappear, their effects will linger.
Words by Reuben Bharucha