(Photo: AP)Are Southeast Asia’s monarchies still relevant in the 21st century? In recent years, the demise of the 239-year old Shah dynasty in Nepal indicates that the institution could be highly vulnerable if it appeared antagonistic toward democracy.
In Southeast Asia, some monarchies have successfully entrenched their rule alongside democracy. Some are potentially becoming the target of annihilation. At present, four of 10 Southeast Asian nations endure various kinds of monarchy, ranging from absolute to constitutional and ceremonial.
The deeply respected King Bhumibol Adulyadej remains the world’s longest reigning monarch and the epicenter of the Thai political entity despite the political turmoil that has swept the country since the 2006 military coup that deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, allegedly at the hands of backers of the royalty. As the aging monarch grows more frail, there are concerns about how the succession to the throne will be handled.
In Brunei, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei has proven his resilience in upholding the legitimacy of his absolute reign in an era of surrounding democratic nation-states. Cambodia’s King Sihamoni, whose role is largely ceremonial, nonetheless plays a vital part in the construction of a Khmer national identity.
Malaysia has a system of elective monarchy. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the highest ranking office created by the Constitution of the federation of Malaysia. The current Agong is Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin, the Sultan of Terengganu. As political turmoil has swept the country in the wake of 2008 elections that broke the ruling national coalition’s two-thirds hold on power in the national legislature, the United Malays National Organization, the biggest ethnic party in the national coalition, has attempted to use a perceived lack of respect for the royalty by opposition leaders to whip up Malay sentiment against the opposition.
Elsewhere in the world, monarchies have been perceived as a political anachronism in the face of the prevailing democratic institutions. In Southeast Asia, the vestiges of the bygone era ruled by kings and sultans have been able to survive the democratic era. But for how long?
Thailand’s prolonged crisis in which opposite factions have competed fiercely to strengthen their power position has further dragged the much-revered King deep into the political abyss. The Thai monarch could hardly escape being a casualty of the internal conflict simply because the political fault line was drawn on the growing resentment of the majority poor Thais who criticized the Bangkok elites for their despotic behavior. These elites have long claimed to represent the voice of the Thai monarchy.
The sultan of Brunei has so far demonstrated his ability to adjust to meet new challenges. He solidifies his legitimacy using the ideology of Melayu Islam Beraja, which allows for the significant role of Islam at the state level. But this process is exclusive and it is at risk of being rejected by Brunei’s non-Muslim population.
Indian scholar Sreeram Chaulia argues that the future of monarchies in Asia depends on the combination of their personal and political capabilities and how they transpire as a nonthreatening factor to democracy. They rely upon their ability to reinvent themselves at three levels: personal, national and international.
At a personal level, the monarchs more than ever need to exhibit their increased accountability, transparency and responsibility as they live side-by-side with a democratic regime. In Southeast Asia, the concept of divine kingship has remained highly sacred. The Thai and Cambodian kings are supposed to perform as Buddhist Dhammarajas, or virtual kings, so as to augment their charisma, and subsequently reverence, from their subordinates. Likewise, the sultans have been exercising their royal authority based on Islam.
The religious sanctity of the throne is indispensable for the existence of the monarchs. It unveils the close intertwining between kingship and religion, and if used wisely, it can enhance further the level of divinity of the monarchs. The abolition of the Nepalese absolute monarchy under the reign of Gyanendra Bikram Dev partly derived from the lack of his religious charisma and from the fact that he had come to the throne after his nephew, the crown prince, had murdered almost the entire royal family.
At a national level, the monarchy’s endurance is intricately related to its alliance with the military, as exemplified by the Thai military’s role in bringing down Thaksin and making sure the deposed prime minister’s Republican supporters didn’t come to power and bring him back.
Historically, the military was an obligatory defender of the royal institution. Past and present kings have sought to forge intimate alliances with armies. In fact, the military possesses a powerful mandate that often determines the lifespan of all kinds of regimes, be they monarchical, despotic or democratic. Central to the longevity of the monarchies is the loyalty of the military.
Moreover, future monarchies need to work closely with fundamental political parties which represent dominant groups in society and are not necessarily royalists. Meanwhile, they are obliged to avoid being seen as the patrons of minority privilege, as this would further separate the throne from the majority middle to lower classes: if the majority’s voice is heard, the king’s position is safe.
All these guides to longevity of the monarchies in Southeast Asia do not automatically offer a rosy picture for their future. New factors emerge periodically to challenge the integrity of their rule. Using illegitimate weapons, such as manipulating the legal system to fight against such challenges, may prove counterproductive.
The monarchical system has been around for thousands of years. The ultimate key to the survival of the monarchical institution, therefore, rests on the way in which it acts and reacts in a complementary manner to the rising desire of the people for democracy.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun is a visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.
In Southeast Asia, some monarchies have successfully entrenched their rule alongside democracy. Some are potentially becoming the target of annihilation. At present, four of 10 Southeast Asian nations endure various kinds of monarchy, ranging from absolute to constitutional and ceremonial.
The deeply respected King Bhumibol Adulyadej remains the world’s longest reigning monarch and the epicenter of the Thai political entity despite the political turmoil that has swept the country since the 2006 military coup that deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, allegedly at the hands of backers of the royalty. As the aging monarch grows more frail, there are concerns about how the succession to the throne will be handled.
In Brunei, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei has proven his resilience in upholding the legitimacy of his absolute reign in an era of surrounding democratic nation-states. Cambodia’s King Sihamoni, whose role is largely ceremonial, nonetheless plays a vital part in the construction of a Khmer national identity.
Malaysia has a system of elective monarchy. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the highest ranking office created by the Constitution of the federation of Malaysia. The current Agong is Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin, the Sultan of Terengganu. As political turmoil has swept the country in the wake of 2008 elections that broke the ruling national coalition’s two-thirds hold on power in the national legislature, the United Malays National Organization, the biggest ethnic party in the national coalition, has attempted to use a perceived lack of respect for the royalty by opposition leaders to whip up Malay sentiment against the opposition.
Elsewhere in the world, monarchies have been perceived as a political anachronism in the face of the prevailing democratic institutions. In Southeast Asia, the vestiges of the bygone era ruled by kings and sultans have been able to survive the democratic era. But for how long?
Thailand’s prolonged crisis in which opposite factions have competed fiercely to strengthen their power position has further dragged the much-revered King deep into the political abyss. The Thai monarch could hardly escape being a casualty of the internal conflict simply because the political fault line was drawn on the growing resentment of the majority poor Thais who criticized the Bangkok elites for their despotic behavior. These elites have long claimed to represent the voice of the Thai monarchy.
The sultan of Brunei has so far demonstrated his ability to adjust to meet new challenges. He solidifies his legitimacy using the ideology of Melayu Islam Beraja, which allows for the significant role of Islam at the state level. But this process is exclusive and it is at risk of being rejected by Brunei’s non-Muslim population.
Indian scholar Sreeram Chaulia argues that the future of monarchies in Asia depends on the combination of their personal and political capabilities and how they transpire as a nonthreatening factor to democracy. They rely upon their ability to reinvent themselves at three levels: personal, national and international.
At a personal level, the monarchs more than ever need to exhibit their increased accountability, transparency and responsibility as they live side-by-side with a democratic regime. In Southeast Asia, the concept of divine kingship has remained highly sacred. The Thai and Cambodian kings are supposed to perform as Buddhist Dhammarajas, or virtual kings, so as to augment their charisma, and subsequently reverence, from their subordinates. Likewise, the sultans have been exercising their royal authority based on Islam.
The religious sanctity of the throne is indispensable for the existence of the monarchs. It unveils the close intertwining between kingship and religion, and if used wisely, it can enhance further the level of divinity of the monarchs. The abolition of the Nepalese absolute monarchy under the reign of Gyanendra Bikram Dev partly derived from the lack of his religious charisma and from the fact that he had come to the throne after his nephew, the crown prince, had murdered almost the entire royal family.
At a national level, the monarchy’s endurance is intricately related to its alliance with the military, as exemplified by the Thai military’s role in bringing down Thaksin and making sure the deposed prime minister’s Republican supporters didn’t come to power and bring him back.
Historically, the military was an obligatory defender of the royal institution. Past and present kings have sought to forge intimate alliances with armies. In fact, the military possesses a powerful mandate that often determines the lifespan of all kinds of regimes, be they monarchical, despotic or democratic. Central to the longevity of the monarchies is the loyalty of the military.
Moreover, future monarchies need to work closely with fundamental political parties which represent dominant groups in society and are not necessarily royalists. Meanwhile, they are obliged to avoid being seen as the patrons of minority privilege, as this would further separate the throne from the majority middle to lower classes: if the majority’s voice is heard, the king’s position is safe.
All these guides to longevity of the monarchies in Southeast Asia do not automatically offer a rosy picture for their future. New factors emerge periodically to challenge the integrity of their rule. Using illegitimate weapons, such as manipulating the legal system to fight against such challenges, may prove counterproductive.
The monarchical system has been around for thousands of years. The ultimate key to the survival of the monarchical institution, therefore, rests on the way in which it acts and reacts in a complementary manner to the rising desire of the people for democracy.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun is a visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.
1 comments:
Very Interesting post. I have a question that I can't seem to find a straight answer to though. What does the Cambodian Monarch actually do? How important is he to the Cambodian political process? I come from Canada, which technically is also a constitutional monarchy under the UK's Elizabeth the Second. In theory, her Canadian representative--the Governor General--has the power to veto any type of legislation. In practice, this is never ever done. The "royal signature" required for legislation to pass is all but a formality. Still, the theoretical power of veto is technically possible. Does the Cambodian king even have this small non-power?
Post a Comment