On 24 June 1932, the People’s Party, a civilian-military coalition, fomented a transformation from absolute monarchy to a constitutional regime in Thailand. In the ninety-four years since then, there has been a constant struggle by supporters of democracy to make the promise of the transformation real. The transformation remained fundamentally incomplete and the position of the monarchy in the polity permanently unclear. The most recent attempt was the series of protests for democracy and reform of the monarchy in 2020, when hundreds of thousands of people across the country went into the streets to call for change. For a time, it seemed as though those who held power would hear and accede to their demands. Instead, this possibility was crushed, or at least put on hold, with a wave of arrests.
This included at least 292 people being accused of violation of Article 112, the provision of the Criminal Code which stipulates that, “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, queen, heir-apparent or regent shall be punished with three-to-fifteen years imprisonment.” Once a person is accused of violation of the law, innocent verdicts are rare.
Get Sophon Suratitthamrong, a 28-year-old radiologic medical student activist from Navamindradhiraj University is one of those accused. He has been prosecuted and convicted in four Article 112 cases and is currently serving a total sentence of ten years and six months. Since the conviction in his first case, on 24 August 2023, he has been incarcerated in the Bangkok Remand Prison.
The location of Get’s critique of the status quo has shifted from the streets to essays he pens and sends out from prison. Across topics ranging from reflections on political movements past and present in and beyond Thailand, solidarity and more, he is building an analysis of democracy, sovereignty, and political participation. The basis for Get’s analysis is his own experience of both struggle and repression. He writes under conditions of significant restriction, including limited access to writing materials and books.
In his latest essay, originally disseminated in Thai by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, the primary organizing documenting and defending civil and political rights, he reflects on the 94th anniversary of the 1932 transformation. He assesses what obstacles to and possibilities of democracy are latent in the seemingly quiescent present.
Tyrell Haberkorn, translator.
Tyrell Haberkorn is Plaenert-Bascom Professor of Southeast Asian Studies at University of Wisconsin- Madison. She researches and writes about state violence and dissident cultural politics in Thailand from the end of the absolute monarchy in 1932 until the present. She is the author, among others, of Dictatorship on Trial: Coups and the Future of Justice in Thailand (Stanford UP 2024).
After the transformation of rule in 1932, there were attempts to usurp power such as the Boworadet Rebellion. But the royals were unable to legitimate absolutism and so were forced to adapt. They had to find a way to once again possess hegemony in the name of democracy.
Conservative royalists often argue that Thailand is not a full-fledged democracy because the People’s Party was premature. Rama 7 had prepared a constitution that merely had not yet been promulgated. The People’s Party seized power before it could be promulgated. However, that constitution was not democratic in any way.
Even right-wing academics agree on this point. The aforementioned draft constitution was “An Outline of Changes in the Form of Government,” by Raymond B. Stevens, a former member of Congress and advisor to the U.S. State Department. Sovereignty over administration, legislation, and the judiciary still remained fully with the king. The Outline simply organized the absolute monarchy into a system.
“Thailand is like no other nation. If there must be democracy, it must be adapted to be Thai-style democracy.” This sentence features often in speeches by conservatives. “Thai-style democracy” is democracy with the king as head of state. This style of democracy was born in the 1949 Constitution, promulgated after the 8 November 1947 coup. The monarchy’s popularity was extensively promoted during the military dictatorships of Sarit Thanarat and Thanom Kittikachorn from 1957 onwards.
In other words, “democracy with the king as head of state” was not the original intention of the transformation in 1932. It would be a bit much to say that this kind of democracy is a Thai tradition.
Ninety-four years have passed. There has been a steady stream of new governments. But have the rulers of Thai society really changed? Today, the problems discussed in the People’s Party Declaration remain. The elite still exist above the law. The Thai ruling class has built an expansive, deep-rooted patronage network. Their apparatus spans from high-level bureaucrats to capitalists. A person’s worth is determined entirely by to whom they belong.
Low-level bureaucrats have no voice. Without connections, one cannot advance. Promotions go to nepo babies. Graft is rampant and in plain sight. From bribery in construction to corruption in government procurement, the backs of the common people remain a fertile site for the powerful to extract resources.
While the economy is in the dumps and people are living hand to mouth, the ruling class floats happily buoyed by the peoples’ taxes. When we try to speak out to demand fairness, they do not merely refuse to listen to us. They attempt to suppress and lock us up in the name of security. For whom is such security? At present, for whom do the government and state agencies work?
The reason that democracy does not flourish in our country is not because the demands were made at the wrong place or the wrong time. The ruling class is full of power and privilege and has secured an abundance of wealth by plundering public resources. Why would they want to distribute such wealth to society? Why would they relinquish their status and power? They refuse no matter when we call on them. The reason that the tree of democracy does not flourish in Thailand is not because the seeds are not suited for the soil. We do not need to genetically modify it and alter its identity.
After all, the definition of democracy is easy to understand. The country does not belong to any one person, but to all of the people. The principles of allocating resources and setting social policy must be in accordance with the public interest, not for the benefit of an individual or specific groups or factions.
To build a fully democratic society, I think that singling out the elite for attack is insufficient. Those working in the movement should turn to foster a democratic consciousness among the masses as well. Are we willing to accept monopolies or the passing down of power through hereditary lines or particular cliques, or not? There is nothing strange about using the resources that one has obtained fair and square as one wishes. But are we willing to accept the use of tax revenue to indulge in reckless extravagance, or not?
The answers to the above questions are one indicator of the presence or absence of democratic consciousness. When democratic consciousness is rooted among the masses, building democratic social and political structures becomes possible. Examples exist in democratic societies. For example, in South Korea, when there was a coup, the people and their representatives immediately came out to oppose it. Or, in the United States, a vast swath of the people have come out to protest the illegitimate governance of the president.
The struggle of the People’s Party has ended. The creation of democracy did not succeed within one generation. Even the struggle for ideals did not bear fruit in their generation. But their sacrifices fuel our journey. Those who hold power may obstruct freedom or truth for a given time. But they cannot change the truth. And they cannot hold onto power forever.
Those who hold power may think that the suppression of the people is the ultimate demonstration that they are able to do whatever they wish. But in another register, their suppression, whether it is the attempt to censor writing or the arrest of people, reflects their fear. They fear the truth. They fear freedom. They fear that when democracy blooms, their power will wither.