Monarchies in Southeast Asia

In the West, monarchies have been perceived as a political anachronism in the face of the prevailing democratic institutions of government. The British monarchy has survived because of its constant reinvention to keep up with political developments at home. Dennis Kavanagh said, “The key to the monarchy’s survival in Britain had been its willingness over the last three centuries to concede power in good time to head off demands for its abolition.” ⁴ 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?

The prolonged political crisis in Thailand in which opposite factions have competed fiercely for ultimately the strengthening of their power position has further dragged the much-revered King deep into the political abyss. But to be fair, Bhumibol has always been an active King. ⁵ And since the military coup of 2006, certain members of the Thai royal family no longer play politics behind the scene, they are now moving themselves into the footlights. For example, Queen Sirikit’s attendance of a funeral of a yellow-shirt member of the royalist People’s Alliance for Democracy was surely perceived as the monarchy’s meddling in politics. Her appearance at the funeral infuriated the red shirts.

The Sultan of Brunei has so far demonstrated his ability to adjust the domestic political system to meet new challenges. He solidifies his legitimacy using the ideology of Melayu Islam Beraja (MIB) which allows for the significant role of Islam at the state level. But this process is exclusive and is at risk of being rejected by its non-Muslim population.

Meanwhile, other royals have been sullied by scandals and misbehaviour. These have tainted the image of the royals and therefore have emerged as a threat to their survival. For instance, Tengku Temenggong Mohammad Fakhry, the prince of Malaysia’s Kelantan state, was accused of treating his 17 year-old ex-model wife as a sex slave. This was not the first controversy surrounding the many members of Malaysia’s royal families. Hazliza Ishak, a 26-year-old former model, was the second wife of Raja Jaafar Raja Muda Musa, the second- in-line to the throne of Malaysia’s Perak state. She was found dead in 2002 close to Ipoh. Her death ignited a full-blown royal scandal that gripped the nation for months.

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 non-threatening factor to democracy. ⁶ In the Southeast Asian context, the survival of the monarchies, likewise, relies much 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, if they want to live side-by-side with a democratic regime. On mainland 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. Much in the same vein, the Sultans must show that they exercise their royal authority based on Islam. The religious sanctity of the throne is indispensable for the existence of the monarchies. It demonstrates 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 King Gyanendra Bikram Dev partly derived from the lack of his religious charisma. Chaulia said:

Divine origin myths have always been the bedrocks of monarchical power, but they also imply a certain expectation from the masses that the holy king should rule in an upright and spotlessly clean fashion. Charisma is not automatic, even in a hereditary religious line of succession, but earned through acts that remind people of the religious sanctity of the throne. Nepal’s Gyanendra forgot this crucial aspect and squandered all remnants of respect and adoration that his predecessors earned. From personal licentiousness to alleged criminality, the scandals and negative publicity about the royal family that Gyanendra failed to contain dug his grave in the popular eye. ⁷

At a national level, the monarchy’s staying power is intricately related to its alliance with the military. As history has shown, the military has been an obligatory defender of the royal institution. Past and present kings have sought to forge intimate alliances with armies, as can be seen by the prefix “Royal” for the national army in some countries. Thai armed forces become the Royal Armed Forces, symbolising the King as the commander-in-chief. In the Thai case, it is clear that King Bhumibol has overwhelmingly enjoyed the firm support from the military. General Prem Tinsulanonda, the President of the Privy Council and former prime minister (1980-88)—the position appointed by the King himself, once said, “The military is a horse that serves the King, not politicians.”8 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. But the intimate ties between the monarch and the military can never guarantee the stability of the throne, particularly if such ties threaten democracy. Again, the current Thai crisis has demonstrated that the monarchy-military alliance is now slowly losing its grip of power. The red-shirt movement is determined to fight against the military domination of politics. And the involvement of the monarchy in politics has led to a birth of the so-called anti-monarchy element in Thailand.