Advertisement

Thailand: Successful or Incomplete Democracy?

  • Amy L. Freedman

Abstract

Scholars and journalists like to point to Thailand as the country in Southeast Asia with the longest experience of independent and democratic rule. Yet, Thailand’s political history can be better characterized as shifting between different periods of time when power is concentrated (more or less) in the hands of one of these groups: Bangkok bureaucrats, the military, local officials, and/or the king. Thailand has had the benefit of a long period of nationhood and under the absolute rule of King Chulalongkorn (1868–1910) nationalism was developed based on the importance of the king, Buddhism, and the bureaucracy. These were the three elements that legitimized state power. In 1932/33 a coup was carried out as a reaction to aristocratic privilege. Power shifted toward the military and the bureaucratic elites. Although the coup was carried out in the name of the people, power was still held by a cozy circle of bureaucrats and military leaders. The aim of the coup was to weaken the power of the conservative ministers of the royal government and it was not against the king personally. With time, the king’s official power over the bureaucracy and the military has diminished, but he has remained a powerful personal figure and can command considerable behind-the-scenes influence on important issues.

Keywords

Civil Society Prime Minister Political Change Political Reform Political Liberalization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Chapter 1 Thailand: Successful or Incomplete Democracy?

  1. 12.
    Clark Neher, “Democratization in Thailand,” Asian Affairs, an American Review 21, no. 4 (winter 1995): 202.Google Scholar
  2. 15.
    Michael Vatikiotis, “Free at Last,” Far Eastern Economic Review (hereafter referred to as FEER) July 10, 1997, 70–71.Google Scholar
  3. 18.
    Edward Tang, “Chavalit Scrambles to Soften Political Fallout from IMF Aid,” The Straits Times (Singapore) July 31, 1997, 23.Google Scholar
  4. 19.
    Michael Vatikiotis, “Backyard Repairs,” FEER August 28, 1997, 17.Google Scholar
  5. 20.
    Seth Mydans, “As Turmoil Builds, Thai Leader Shuffles Cabinet,” New York Times October 25, 1997, A3.Google Scholar
  6. 23.
    Michael Kelly Connors, “Political Reform and the State in Thailand,” Journal of Contemporary Asia 29, no. 2 (1999): 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 45.
    Amy L. Freedman, “Economic Crises and Political Change: Indonesia, South Korea, and Malaysia,” World Affairs$1166, no. 4 (spring 2004 ): 185–196.Google Scholar
  8. 46.
    Karen Remmer, “The Political Impact of Economic Crisis in Latin America in the 1980s,” American Political Science Review 85, no. 3 (1991): 777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Amy L. Freedman 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy L. Freedman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations