Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
It is usually a brave person who ventures too close to the furnace of Thailand’s succession politics. Not only is reliable information about who will follow King Bhumibol difficult to obtain, but there is also a commonly voiced sentiment that the issue is, for many commentators, simply too hot to handle.
Nonetheless, when pressed for an answer it is common for some of us to speculate about the influence of succession politics in the ongoing crisis. The prevailing assumption is that Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn has become the (almost) undisputed heir to Thailand’s Chakri throne.
The general consensus, as summarised by The Economist, is that:
The crown itself should pass smoothly. The designated male heir is Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, aged 57, and there is not much scope for doubt about his claim…The death of King Bhumibol would also signal a generational shift in Thailand: younger voices could start to be heard.
A few years ago this consensus was more brittle and, in fact, I recall a time when many commentators (including Andrew and I, among others) wrote consistently of “lingering uncertainty” within the palace about succession. For a number of reasons the current consensus, as summarised by The Economist, and given a nuanced treatment elsewhere, strikes me as potentially problematic. One reason for my caution has its roots in history. The place of competing “king-makers” in Thailand’s long-term politics is a topic that has been on my mind ever since Thongchai Winichakul’s fascinating presentation in London shortly after the 2006 coup.
Is it reasonable to assume that the effort to portray the Crown Prince as the inevitable successor should be treated on its superficial merits? Indeed, I fail to see how the constant and hysterical attacks on the Red shirts over the past few years could be strategic unless there is significant fear, among Thailand’s highest echelons, that the succession plan (whatever it is) will be interrupted by Thaksin-aligned politicians.
Comments from readers on this issue are very welcome. I don’t pretend to have any clean or clear answers but I do feel that it is important that commentary on these matters is better informed. Perhaps we can all work together to help understand this dynamic situation.
To begin that task I want to ask: Who are the “king-makers” at the end of King Bhumibol’s reign? Can we assume that the Crown Prince is still the designated successor? Do our answers to those questions leave open alternative, and equally convincing, interpretations of the current conflict?
And just for a bit of added spice go on over to PPT and read the copy of Peter Hartcher’s article for the Sydney Morning Herald, “The Scheming King”. Wow! Together with last months ABC program on royal succession and this piece it is clear that Australian journalists, and, I would suggest Australian foreign policy is just not going to toe the Thai royalist party line any longer.
OMG, what am I suggesting, that Australian governments have some kind of control over what the Australian media has been regurgitating all theses years? Nah! it’s just a coincidence.
0
0
Is the question of the succession of the Crown Prince somewhat complicated by the perception that he and Thaksin have business ties?
0
0
I agree with Dave. The Crown Prince is in cahoots with Thaksin so I can’t imagine why they’d bother starting this crap now.
0
0
Something I have been thinking about recently- and to be clear, all of these thoughts are the very opposite of evidence-based.
Assuming that the CP is- or views himself as being- marginalized from the Queen’s and Council’s elite circles. And assuming that he must aligning himself with someone, anyone, else as a counterweight to those circles. Finally, assuming that the majority of Thais are sensing the degraded relevance of HMK’s ability and/or willingness for extra-political intervention (i.e.- the degradation mentioned in the Herald articles).
Then: the CP could, at any point in time and as the expressed heir to the throne, break protocol and speak against the violence He could even go so far as to summon the leaders as his father did 18 years ago.
Such a move would be rash and it would, again, break protocol. But if he were to intervene- and in such a way that publicly appeared as though he were doing so with his father’s blessing- no one could stop him from doing so. No one could come out and say he was abusing his authority, insulting/shaming HMK, physically stop the summoned meeting from occurring, or refuse to attend.
Were he to intervene as such (extrinsically an unbiased intervention for the good of the whole country, obtusely demanding peace from both sides; an intervention viewed by most as intrinsically in favor of the Reds) he would out-flank rival, more powerful, power bases. And, he might go some distance towards mending his main weakness as heir to the throne: no nexus of personal respect and support for him from his subjects.
Anyway, his mother has stepped forward and acted definitively. His sister has stepped forward and acted. The CP is the one individual, under both the constitution and the King’s own declarations, with the standing to act as definitely as his father did in 1992.
Again, any action would need to appear unbiased. But like ’92 and other interventions, the appearance and truth of extra-political impartiality are not one and the same.
So why is he not acting? Is he uncertain of where he will draw power and support during the succession struggle? Does he disagree with the Sydney Herald’s assessment of HMK’s faded image? Since September, has HMK been more active in palatial politics than he has been given credit for- enough so that the CP would still fear his father’s power to personally sway the succession?
Setting aside the idea of the CP replicating ’92, “Why is he not acting?” strikes me as both fascinating and central to what is happening in BKK today.
0
0
“King-makers”, I think the power resides in the Privy Council.
I have long thought that the succession and control of the Privy Council has been part of a lot of recent disputes. It’s just that I’m not smart enough to know who supports who
0
0
Disclaimer: This is a debate where little substantiated information is available, well… almost none, actually because of the LM laws. Therefore, one has to work out theories based essentially on rumors and speculations. And take everything with a big pinch of salt.
I believe it is unnecessary to remind that the CP doesn’t have a very good personal reputation; at a younger age he is widely reported to have acted as a spoiled kid with little insight on what is appropriate or not to do in his position. Even now, his penchant for women seems not to have faded. However, little is known of his political views and his intentions when/if he accesses the throne.
He’s had business ties with Thaksin, but as of now it is unclear where the relationship between those two stands. Allegedly, though, the CP and Thaksin have met a couple of times abroad after Thaksin was ousted from power.
The CP, despite being a former combat pilot, doesn’t seem to maintain a large network of military acquaintances. However, it is strongly suggested that the late Seh Daeng was his protege, reason why the assassinated general was overly confident that his enemies wouldn’t dare touch him.
As the article starting this discussion mentions, there is little doubt that he’s the next in line, however there is some widely propagated rumor that some people are contemplating avoiding this scenario by appointing his son (now aged 5) with a regency – the rumors sometimes go even further by naming the potential regents as Queen Sirikit and Prem Tisulanonda, chairman of the Privy Council. As of know, such scenario has absolutely no legal ground, except in the case that the incumbent himself explicitly pronounces it.
The other alternative scenario of a succession by HRH Maha Chakri was, allegedly, rejected by herself for she’s uninterested and not comfortable with that for her own safety. Anyway, the legal possibility is also very thin.
IF the current turmoil is related to the succession and IF all the above stated rumors have some accuracy, then the theory one could extrapolate is that the protests are putting pressure to dissuade any interested party to mess with the succession by preventing Vajiralongkorn to access the throne. There’s no need for a PhD to figure out who would feel uncomfortable about the next king being in good intelligence with people like Thaksin and Seh Daeng (RIP).
Here’s an odd story. Maybe insignificant, maybe not… :
http://jotman.blogspot.com/2010/03/photographer-of-hrh-crown-prince-of.html
0
0
According to the constitution, the king is the king-maker. He can even re-write the palace law of succession at will. Any more precise discussion of the succession thereby becomes presumptuous in the extreme. His majesty is of course free to change his mind at any time…
0
0
@pff121, I was thinking exactly the same.
The thing is that such action could backfire at him, possibly in the form of a sniper’s bullet in the head if he does so before the inevitable event.
0
0
Since BernardSG has raised the regency question I’ll add to that rumour mill. Other joint regents I’ve heard suggested are the CP and Sirindhorn. Prem is older than the king and cannot have too many more years ahead of him. However a friend of mine whose a bit of an expert in childhood problems and who’s had the opportunity to observe the young prince suggested to me that the child exhibits many of the classic symptoms of autism.
0
0
Autism is a genetic disease and it’s well known the the King’s half-American grandson who died during the tsunami was autistic, so such a diagnosis might not be unrealistic. I understand the younger of the CP’s two daughters is dyslexic.
0
0
There are two related “personnel” issues here.
1. The next monarch (to make it gender-neutral)
2. The kingmakers
People often talk only about the first. The second is not less important and it may be a crucial factor for the curent crisis.
For the first, as of now, the only legal heir is the Crown Prince. But as some have pointed out, the current law allows the king to change this as he wishes. This creates uncertainty in various ways, depending on who you talk to. You can imagine the possibility of anything from a smooth transition to a sudden, mysterious change that a hollywood plot cannot match. This uncertainty also amplify the significance of the kingmakers.
For the kingmakers, the best known historical model was the Regent after the death of King Mongkut while King Chula was very young. He was powerful as a king but he once said that being a Regent was better than a king. At most transitions, many powerful royalists would jocky for a position of the kingmakers. Factions may be formed in relations to candidates and/or to the kingmakers.
Whether or not Thaksin, Prem, and many others are doing this and how, you see it by yourselves. The allegation that Thaksin desires to be a President was utterly nonsense. But, again, the rumors are telling why his opponents are afraid of him and hate him so much. The royalist perceptions of him as a threat either to the chance of other kingmakers or to the throne — some said this view comes from the top, is the source of the exaggeration of his danger to the country. It is said that only a few words from the top many years ago were taken to heart by the royalists for an all-out war against Thaksin.
Given all sorts of long-term/ short-term issues underlying the current crisis, the succession issue and the kingmaker competition may be the most critical factor that determines the urgency, degree of violence, how much compromise, and why Abhisit can take so strong a hardline despite the uncooperative army. It may also explain why the palace has been silent and did not intervene in the conflict. (Keep in mind that in 1976, the king did not intervene either. People often forget this and remember only 1973 and 1992, both of which the royalists got huge gains from the interventions.)
0
0
It basically comes down to tradition vs common sense. The prince is somewhat less than loved by the population, but the princess – who is also legally eligible – is the leader people would follow.
In recent years the palace has put a fair bit of effort into cleaning up the Prince’s image, and it would seem they are leaning that way. I don’t think we can rule out a surprise, HM has a pretty good record of putting the people’s interests first.
0
0
@pff123, don’t forget that in 1992 the Crown Prince did intervene.
First Princess Sirindhorn went on national TV asking for peace. Soon afterwards on the same day, the Crown Prince went on the air saying more of less the same thing. Finally, the King went on the air with the principals on their knees.
0
0
“It is said that only a few words from the top many years ago were taken to heart by the royalists for an all-out war against Thaksin” (11). If that is true, I wonder how he feels about it, now that the whole boutique has gone to the devil.
0
0
On the issue of legit successor:
Actually there are two lines of succession for the Chakri dynasty. The current line, and one other, with rights to the throne. So the current CP is not the only candidate. Unfortunately, this was from an old Thai documentary I watched a long time ago and cannot at the moment recall the name of the other line. Anyone here has any info on that?
0
0
Nuomi, you are correct, the Mahidols are not the only line of legal succession.
If the Mahidol line is exhausted, there is the Boripat line. As in the clan of Bangkok Governer Sukhumphan.
But the Mahidol line is rich in potential successors (look at all the Crown Prince’s healthy sons from his second wife), so I don’t think the Governor is looking forward to a big promotion any time soon.
For more information, look up “1924 Palace Law of Succession” on Wikipedia.
0
0