Postscript: the strong state and the well-being of the people

Abstract

Since the foundation of Thailand's nation-state in the late 19th century, two traditions have evolved over its primary purpose. The first of these began from the original formulation in the reign of King Chulalongkorn. The need for a strong absolutist state was justified to overcome external threats (colonialism) and internal disorder so that Siam could achieve ‘progress’ and become a significant country in the world. The right of the existing royal elite to rule this strong state was explained by history (the continuity of monarchy since Sukhothai), and by the elite's selflessness, professionalism, and monopoly of siwilai . The role of the nation was to be unified, passive, and obedient. The formula was revived and updated by military dictators in the mid-20th century. Phibun and Wichit removed the monarchy from its central place, but kept the main elements of the formula intact. The need for a strong dictatorial state was justified to overcome external threats (communism) and internal threats (the Chinese) so that Siam could achieve progress/development and survive in a world of competing nations and ideologies. The right of the military elite to rule was explained by history (the Thai as a martial race), and by its selflessness, professionalism, and monopoly of force. Sarit, with help from the USA, reunited the royal and military strands of the tradition.