The late king’s infirmity meant that the NCPO’s moves toward praetorianism drawing on an ideology other than royalism began very soon after the May 2014 coup, as I noted here toward the end of that same year: http://www.seatide.eu/download.php?filename=SEATIDE Online paper 10. Praetorianism and the People in Late-Bhumibol Thailand_Micheal J. Montesano.pdf . In apply an ideology other than royalism, the dictator Gen Prayut reached back into the Thai army’s history, and specifically to the approach to “the people” that it developed during the counter-insurgency era. This is all laid out in the paper, and, yes, it began more than two years before the king’s demise.
All very well and good.
Political networks have been around for thousands of years. Most networks have a military dimention. There is absolutely nothing new in Thailand. Networks always change according to circumstances at a given time.
How does any change at the top of society actually affect the great majority of Thais? IT DOESN’T.
I thought Prem had pulled off a master stroke coup. Until he appointed Thanin as President of the Privy Council : i.e. THANIN COULD BECOME REGENT. It’s fatal. Bangkok’s middle class may not like Thaksin – but they hate Thanin.
No, sorry, but you’re quite mistaken and don’t get the point of the issue at stake here, simply by the fact that you cite sections 17, 18, 21 (as I’ll explain in a moment).
The issue is not the “pro tempore” of the regent as such, but who is he representing.
Sections 17, 18, 21 are premised on the fact that there IS a living king; only he is not able to name a regent. But a king, there definitely is.
But section 24 is premised on the fact that there is, for the time being, no king at all. (And this is the flaw of section 24 that I mentioned; it’s supposed to be applied for a VERY short period of time, which wouldn’t have caused any practical or legal problem).
Now, you also cite the example of the US. This further illustrates my point, if understood correctly. A person who temporarily acts as POTUS, IS also, while he so acts, a POTUS, only temporarily – an ACTING POTUS. Hence during that time, the US would have a President, only an acting one.
But, according to Thai laws (and Thai state’s legal status as a kingdom), Prem, a non-royal, could not be an acting KING; only a prince could possibly be.
None of you guys understand just the slightest thing of what’s going on in Thailand.
Oh, yes, for sure, you are very good in reading paragraphs, laws, etc., and interpreting them. But how good do you have to be for that? Nevertheless, and no matter what you read, investigate and translate, You are all wrong.
Just like in any other country. A law is just a law, used for a specific purpose. Do I really need to explain this?
Just wait, you’ll soon realise how “Theoretical” your expertise is, indeed.
In the land where lese majeste is king, anyone related to this process could be charged, owing to the problem of whose majeste it is being damaged. For instance, the NLA president could conceivably be charged for not proclaiming, or the PM, as they were not carrying out fully the wish of Rama IX who is, by virtue of a Supreme Court case, possibly still covered by the law. Or I, now that you mention it (but hadn’t thought of it), could be charged for putting imagined words in the mouth of the NLA president that used the wrong pronoun, or you could be charged for suggesting that the regent doesn’t have certain powers since he is certainly covered by 112 now.
As the PM did not present a letter from the CP with his wish in this unprecedented occasion, the case could be made that they were constitutionally obligated to carry out their duty, as what they heard was second-hand and not official. So *legally* (as much as that word still has meaning in Thailand), it would appear that the task was not correctly carried out–and thus someone could make a case of it. It is not so much a matter of truth or not truth or half-truth but how the already tortured body of Thai law could be brought to bear, and subjected to further torture, in this situation.
There is a little precedence for this. Austria had its last monarch in the early 1920s, but a regent stayed on, for some reason, even without a king, for more than a decade after, acting, more or less as king. This is different than the normal “leaving the country” temporary regency that happens in many monarchies around the world. Does the present regent have the power to change the Palace Law? Who knows–it’s never come up before. But if from the deputy prime minister statement that the CP couldn’t sign off on the constitution, it would seem to imply that the regent could. If the regent could do that, then perhaps he could claim that he could change the Palace Law as well.
But it also stands to reason that regents can change palace laws as a general rule, for that is in some ways a regent is for. There could be situation that there is a period when there is no king and some condition of the palace law itself makes it impossible to get a new one proclaimed. The only person with the authority to change the law would be the regent–or that country would not be able to be a monarchy anymore.
Final point– you are right–if things don’t get resolved soon, or they are resolved in some peculiar way, this will become the mother of all constitutional court cases.
Whatever else you may think of the CP I do not think he is dumb. Nor do I think he can be easily manouevred. One thing that does occur to me (I may well be wrong) is that by standing “above the fray” for sufficient time, the CP avoids the necessity of endorsing the new constitution which has to be endorsed by the regent. In this way the CP avoids being associated too closely with what is bound to be a constitution increasingly abhorred as time goes by.
Despite the level of military entrenchment within the political structure post- Referendum, it will be interesting to see how civilian politics and broader social movements that have appealed to the excesses of hyper-royalism (such as the PAD and the slew of lese-majeste cases it pushed for ) fit into this reconfiguration.
Given the decades of creating royalist aura through public intellectual discourse and the monarch’s personal role in rural and social development initiatives from the 1970s, it also interesting to see how the CP would build a personal appeal to society. How long would it take to before such an appeal would have a similar legitimation in the way of the network monarchy/ Deep state anaylses.
Shane Tarr – the clearest evidence of the now high – if not very high – risk of civil war is this : the appointment of Thanin Kravixien as Head of the Privy Council, replacing the previously more moderate Prem, who is now self-proclaimed Regent. Thanin is a disaster. After Thammasat in 1976, Thanin nearly brought Thailand to complete civil war.
Kaveh – I don’t think they are “very capable” of getting rid of Prem, as you say. You contradict yourself when going on to say that Prem now has the upper hand. To me, currently, it looks like Prem has out-manoeuvred everyone. Extraordinary at his age. Political genius of the very highest calibre.
Is this REALLY a “very dumb move by the CP” ? Or has he been manoeuvred ? Brilliantly penetrating analysis by Streckfuss, diplomatically worded (including typos!).
While your interpretation here: to represent a monarch, (“ผู้แทนพระองค์”) may be correct…
Section 18 of the draft, interim, and 2007 constitutions states: ‘While there is no Regent under Section 16 or Section 17, the President of the Privy Council shall be Regent pro tempore‘
The difference is the ‘pro tempore’… “for the time being” in English.
‘a person who acts as a locum tenens (placeholder) in the absence of a superior, such as the President pro tempore of the United States Senate, who acts in place of the President of the United States Senate, the Vice President of the United States.’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_tempore
The Regent pro tempore would appear to have all of the power of the head of state.
The Prince and his backer Prayut are an even greater danger to the monarchy than Thaksin. The Thaksin road leads to conventional constitutional monarchy, with a powerful elected government and reduced power for the Monarch and his/her courtiers. But the Prayut road leads to a monarch “whom the multitude holds as loathsome”, and quite easily thence to the complete overthrow of monarchy and the formation of a Thai republic.
That is why Prem is back, and the Prince and Prayut are prosciutto.
I understand the legal limitation you’re under if you’re in Thailand (or, still have to go to Thailand).
But to say that the Cabinet and the NLA “did not fulfill their constitutional duties….” is a best half-true. And it could be quite misleading. You suggest that they could have said “Yes, you may grieve but in the meantime, we proclaim you king.”. This is impossible as of the real situations in Thailand. (Or, considering how the 112 have been used, they could have been charged with violating it, just simply saying such a thing.)
In other words, yes the NLA and the Cabinet did not fulfill their constitutional duty, but it’s the RESULT of the failure of the CP’s failure to fulfill his FIRST.
About the second question. No, legally speaking, the regent couldn’t change the succession law or name new monarch. This is because not only that Thailand now has no king. the position of regent itself is problematic too. He is supposed to represent a monarch, (“ผู้แทนพระองค์”) but if the country has no king, there’s no one he could represent. (The problem goes back to the flaw of article 24 itself, which is supposed to be in force for only a very short time, probably just hours, not days, in which case its flaw wouldn’t have caused any practical problem.) Hence he couldn’t have the power belonging to a monarch (change the succession law, etc.)
In short, Thailand is now in a Constitutional Crisis, as a result of a move, a very dumb move, by the CP.
Frankie Leung do you have anything original to say apart from the mantra that Thailand is heading towards civil war? Apart from hoping you are incorrect having lived in societies that were torn apart by civil war what evidence do you bring to the table? Have a nice day!
Thanks for this interesting article. One thing that is important to note in discussing network monarchy is that it is not a theory. It is a description, and at the time it came out, it seemed most apt. It is unlikely to be as useful for the next reign.
As things changed with the king in health decline and as the military asserted its political dominance, so the network monarchy seemed less apt. This is where the deep state came along.
The notion of a deep state is, I would suggest, also a description that seemed to capture a moment of change and an embedding of monarchy beyond the network.
These descriptions await an attempt to theorize the mood and events they captured.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s peculiar interregnum
I would be interested to learn though you Learned Mark, what is the law in the Kingdom of Thailand when someone overthrows an elected government?
Thailand’s network military?
The late king’s infirmity meant that the NCPO’s moves toward praetorianism drawing on an ideology other than royalism began very soon after the May 2014 coup, as I noted here toward the end of that same year: http://www.seatide.eu/download.php?filename=SEATIDE Online paper 10. Praetorianism and the People in Late-Bhumibol Thailand_Micheal J. Montesano.pdf . In apply an ideology other than royalism, the dictator Gen Prayut reached back into the Thai army’s history, and specifically to the approach to “the people” that it developed during the counter-insurgency era. This is all laid out in the paper, and, yes, it began more than two years before the king’s demise.
In discussing Thai
Thailand’s network military?
All very well and good.
Political networks have been around for thousands of years. Most networks have a military dimention. There is absolutely nothing new in Thailand. Networks always change according to circumstances at a given time.
How does any change at the top of society actually affect the great majority of Thais? IT DOESN’T.
The spectre of succession
I thought Prem had pulled off a master stroke coup. Until he appointed Thanin as President of the Privy Council : i.e. THANIN COULD BECOME REGENT. It’s fatal. Bangkok’s middle class may not like Thaksin – but they hate Thanin.
Thailand’s peculiar interregnum
No, sorry, but you’re quite mistaken and don’t get the point of the issue at stake here, simply by the fact that you cite sections 17, 18, 21 (as I’ll explain in a moment).
The issue is not the “pro tempore” of the regent as such, but who is he representing.
Sections 17, 18, 21 are premised on the fact that there IS a living king; only he is not able to name a regent. But a king, there definitely is.
But section 24 is premised on the fact that there is, for the time being, no king at all. (And this is the flaw of section 24 that I mentioned; it’s supposed to be applied for a VERY short period of time, which wouldn’t have caused any practical or legal problem).
Now, you also cite the example of the US. This further illustrates my point, if understood correctly. A person who temporarily acts as POTUS, IS also, while he so acts, a POTUS, only temporarily – an ACTING POTUS. Hence during that time, the US would have a President, only an acting one.
But, according to Thai laws (and Thai state’s legal status as a kingdom), Prem, a non-royal, could not be an acting KING; only a prince could possibly be.
Thailand’s peculiar interregnum
None of you guys understand just the slightest thing of what’s going on in Thailand.
Oh, yes, for sure, you are very good in reading paragraphs, laws, etc., and interpreting them. But how good do you have to be for that? Nevertheless, and no matter what you read, investigate and translate, You are all wrong.
Just like in any other country. A law is just a law, used for a specific purpose. Do I really need to explain this?
Just wait, you’ll soon realise how “Theoretical” your expertise is, indeed.
Thailand’s peculiar interregnum
As to your comments, Ajaan Somsak:
In the land where lese majeste is king, anyone related to this process could be charged, owing to the problem of whose majeste it is being damaged. For instance, the NLA president could conceivably be charged for not proclaiming, or the PM, as they were not carrying out fully the wish of Rama IX who is, by virtue of a Supreme Court case, possibly still covered by the law. Or I, now that you mention it (but hadn’t thought of it), could be charged for putting imagined words in the mouth of the NLA president that used the wrong pronoun, or you could be charged for suggesting that the regent doesn’t have certain powers since he is certainly covered by 112 now.
As the PM did not present a letter from the CP with his wish in this unprecedented occasion, the case could be made that they were constitutionally obligated to carry out their duty, as what they heard was second-hand and not official. So *legally* (as much as that word still has meaning in Thailand), it would appear that the task was not correctly carried out–and thus someone could make a case of it. It is not so much a matter of truth or not truth or half-truth but how the already tortured body of Thai law could be brought to bear, and subjected to further torture, in this situation.
There is a little precedence for this. Austria had its last monarch in the early 1920s, but a regent stayed on, for some reason, even without a king, for more than a decade after, acting, more or less as king. This is different than the normal “leaving the country” temporary regency that happens in many monarchies around the world. Does the present regent have the power to change the Palace Law? Who knows–it’s never come up before. But if from the deputy prime minister statement that the CP couldn’t sign off on the constitution, it would seem to imply that the regent could. If the regent could do that, then perhaps he could claim that he could change the Palace Law as well.
But it also stands to reason that regents can change palace laws as a general rule, for that is in some ways a regent is for. There could be situation that there is a period when there is no king and some condition of the palace law itself makes it impossible to get a new one proclaimed. The only person with the authority to change the law would be the regent–or that country would not be able to be a monarchy anymore.
Final point– you are right–if things don’t get resolved soon, or they are resolved in some peculiar way, this will become the mother of all constitutional court cases.
Thailand’s peculiar interregnum
Whatever else you may think of the CP I do not think he is dumb. Nor do I think he can be easily manouevred. One thing that does occur to me (I may well be wrong) is that by standing “above the fray” for sufficient time, the CP avoids the necessity of endorsing the new constitution which has to be endorsed by the regent. In this way the CP avoids being associated too closely with what is bound to be a constitution increasingly abhorred as time goes by.
Thailand’s network military?
Despite the level of military entrenchment within the political structure post- Referendum, it will be interesting to see how civilian politics and broader social movements that have appealed to the excesses of hyper-royalism (such as the PAD and the slew of lese-majeste cases it pushed for ) fit into this reconfiguration.
Given the decades of creating royalist aura through public intellectual discourse and the monarch’s personal role in rural and social development initiatives from the 1970s, it also interesting to see how the CP would build a personal appeal to society. How long would it take to before such an appeal would have a similar legitimation in the way of the network monarchy/ Deep state anaylses.
Thailand’s network military?
Shane Tarr – the clearest evidence of the now high – if not very high – risk of civil war is this : the appointment of Thanin Kravixien as Head of the Privy Council, replacing the previously more moderate Prem, who is now self-proclaimed Regent. Thanin is a disaster. After Thammasat in 1976, Thanin nearly brought Thailand to complete civil war.
The king still never smiles
Kaveh – I don’t think they are “very capable” of getting rid of Prem, as you say. You contradict yourself when going on to say that Prem now has the upper hand. To me, currently, it looks like Prem has out-manoeuvred everyone. Extraordinary at his age. Political genius of the very highest calibre.
Thailand’s peculiar interregnum
Is this REALLY a “very dumb move by the CP” ? Or has he been manoeuvred ? Brilliantly penetrating analysis by Streckfuss, diplomatically worded (including typos!).
Thailand’s peculiar interregnum
While your interpretation here: to represent a monarch, (“ผู้แทนพระองค์”) may be correct…
Section 18 of the draft, interim, and 2007 constitutions states: ‘While there is no Regent under Section 16 or Section 17, the President of the Privy Council shall be Regent pro tempore‘
Section 22: ‘While pending the proclamation of the name of the Heir or the Successor to the Throne under Section 21, the President of the Privy Council shall be Regent pro tempore (End Of Days: Thailand King Bhumibol Adulyadej Dead http://aecnewstoday.com/2016/end-of-days-thailand-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-dead/#ixzz4Nb7lI6Mt).
The difference is the ‘pro tempore’… “for the time being” in English.
‘a person who acts as a locum tenens (placeholder) in the absence of a superior, such as the President pro tempore of the United States Senate, who acts in place of the President of the United States Senate, the Vice President of the United States.’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_tempore
The Regent pro tempore would appear to have all of the power of the head of state.
The spectre of succession
Given the regularity of coups in Thailand, it is hardly surprising that each change in the monarchy is followed by one. Sooner or later…
Thailand’s peculiar interregnum
The Prince and his backer Prayut are an even greater danger to the monarchy than Thaksin. The Thaksin road leads to conventional constitutional monarchy, with a powerful elected government and reduced power for the Monarch and his/her courtiers. But the Prayut road leads to a monarch “whom the multitude holds as loathsome”, and quite easily thence to the complete overthrow of monarchy and the formation of a Thai republic.
That is why Prem is back, and the Prince and Prayut are prosciutto.
Thailand’s peculiar interregnum
I understand the legal limitation you’re under if you’re in Thailand (or, still have to go to Thailand).
But to say that the Cabinet and the NLA “did not fulfill their constitutional duties….” is a best half-true. And it could be quite misleading. You suggest that they could have said “Yes, you may grieve but in the meantime, we proclaim you king.”. This is impossible as of the real situations in Thailand. (Or, considering how the 112 have been used, they could have been charged with violating it, just simply saying such a thing.)
In other words, yes the NLA and the Cabinet did not fulfill their constitutional duty, but it’s the RESULT of the failure of the CP’s failure to fulfill his FIRST.
About the second question. No, legally speaking, the regent couldn’t change the succession law or name new monarch. This is because not only that Thailand now has no king. the position of regent itself is problematic too. He is supposed to represent a monarch, (“ผู้แทนพระองค์”) but if the country has no king, there’s no one he could represent. (The problem goes back to the flaw of article 24 itself, which is supposed to be in force for only a very short time, probably just hours, not days, in which case its flaw wouldn’t have caused any practical problem.) Hence he couldn’t have the power belonging to a monarch (change the succession law, etc.)
In short, Thailand is now in a Constitutional Crisis, as a result of a move, a very dumb move, by the CP.
Thailand’s network military?
Frankie Leung do you have anything original to say apart from the mantra that Thailand is heading towards civil war? Apart from hoping you are incorrect having lived in societies that were torn apart by civil war what evidence do you bring to the table? Have a nice day!
Thailand’s network military?
Thanks for this interesting article. One thing that is important to note in discussing network monarchy is that it is not a theory. It is a description, and at the time it came out, it seemed most apt. It is unlikely to be as useful for the next reign.
As things changed with the king in health decline and as the military asserted its political dominance, so the network monarchy seemed less apt. This is where the deep state came along.
The notion of a deep state is, I would suggest, also a description that seemed to capture a moment of change and an embedding of monarchy beyond the network.
These descriptions await an attempt to theorize the mood and events they captured.
That said, the network of the previous monarch does seem to still have some kick left: https://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/all-the-kings-men/
Thailand’s network military?
Excellent and informative article. I hope to hear more from Shui.
Thailand’s network military?
Thailand is heading towards a civil war.