The politics of authoritarianism: the state and political soldiers in burma, indonesia, and thailand by Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe M. A., University of British Columbia, 1990 B. A., University of Rangoon, 1961

Pibul's authoritarian regime was not, as will be discussed, a simple military dictatorship. Pibul retained the King as a constitutional monarch, as means to provide his regime with legitimacy. Pibul's military rule with a constitutionarch monarch -- the "Pibul system" -- permitted, in Linz's terms, "limited pluralism", as discussed in the opening theoretical chapters. This pluralism entailed a limited participation of the bureaucracy and certain elite groups in electoral and legislative politics. The legislat-ure appointed Prime Ministers and debated issues, sometimes rigorously^.475 Pibul relied upon the military to maintain his personal grip on power and he rewarded it amply.

In 1957, Sarit Thanarat staged a coup against Pibul -- or against a rival military clique, the Phin-Phao clique, as will be discussed. He was much more authoritarian than Pibul, and established a more cohesive military-authoritarian order. Like Ne Win, he abolished representative institutions and he restricted popular access to the state. Unlike Ne Win, however, Sarit co-opted the civilian bureaucracy and, like Suharto, he developed a more cohesive military-civilian bureaucratic base. Sarit had little regard for the democratic forms -- legislatures, competitive elections, and so on -- which had come to be associated in Thailand with the constitutional monarchy. But he adeptly exploited the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy, with its inherent legitimacy, to bolster his personal rule. In sum, Sarit successfully presented himself as a firm yet benevolent ruler, a "father of the people" who held and exercised power as a loyal servant of the crown.

Another characteristic of Thai politics in regard to military intervention, especially, is that, unlike in Burma and Indonesia, the military has occasionally been pushed back into the barracks by popular forces -- in 1973 and again in 1992, as mentioned. Thailand, furthermore, has experienced a tentative transition to democracy. As will be discussed, as the 1980s progressed, the business elite gained the ability to influence the state via political parties, elections and Parliament, and thereby gained greater autonomy. They have further consolidated their position by securing alliances with elements in the military and the bureaucracy. Although there was an attempt by the military to reassert its dominance in 1991, one could say tentatively that the democratization process has taken hold in Thailand.

The military has had to be content with the capture of the crucial government ministeries or to hold power without assuming full responsibility.⁴⁷⁸ Also, it has had to respect the operational autonomy of the civilian bureaucracy, and share power with societal elites -- after the 1980s, with economic-business elites. In terms of state-society relations, the military's dominance has been and continues to be constrained by a constellation of civilian bureaucratic and non-bureaucratic elites. Nonetheless, one might also say that it has also succeeded in maintaining a system of authoritarian rule or, according to Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski, an autocracy.⁴⁷⁹

Despite the ideological break with absolutistism in 1932, it is interesting to note that the Revolution did not disrupt the initiatives set in motion by royal reforms, particularly the centralization and concentration of power in the hands of rulers and officials. This continuity has resulted in the consolidation of a kind of state-society order termed by Riggs and others as a "bureaucratic polity".⁴⁸⁰ What has been "normal-ized", not withstanding the 1932 Revolution, is the entrenchment of armed and unarm-ed bureaucrats in politics. Military coups and the manipulation of electoral processes have been, as Chai-Anan notes, the primary forms of bureaucratic involvement in politics.⁴⁸¹
The numerous instances of military interventions, fifteen in all, makes the Thai military the most politically energetic of the armed forces examined.⁴⁸² In contrast, there were only three interventions in Burma, an indirect intervention in 1958, and direct coups in 1962 and 1988, as already discussed. In Indonesia, after independen-ce, the military did not intervene prior to 1959. In 1959-1960, as shown, it intervened indirectly in support of Sukarno, who abolished the parliamentary system and established the system of Guided Democracy. Suharto's action in 1965 was more a reaction to an attempted coup by a radical-leftist military faction, than an attempt to topple the existing regime.

The frequency of coups has created an impression that Thailand is a Hunting-tonian praetorian state. However, except during coups, Thai soldiers have been largely confined to the barracks. They have not, in contrast to Burma and Indonesia, figured prominently in the administrative machinery of the state. In this respect, the Thai military, despite its many incursions into politics, is a much more professional-ized body.

The greater complexity of military intrusion in Thai politics, compared to Burma and Indonesia, raises some questions about the discussion in the opening chapters concerning the nature and scope of military coups: Are coups in Thailand linked to the politics of the state? Do they occur because the state is threatened, as observed theoretically? Does the frequency of military coups in Thailand -- ruled by military strongmen for quite a long time -- mean that the military is quite autonom-ous, vis-à-vis its chief-turned-ruler?
Inquiring closely into the dynamics of Thai coups, they seem to fit roughly into four categories: 1) coups geared toward the reorganization of political power to make the state more authoritarian and to establish (or reestablish) military dominance; 2) coups arising from attempts to resolve problems and contradictions arising because of the democratic forms adopted by ruling military strongmen themselves and their unreformed inclinations favoring authoritarian rule; 3) coups aimed at restoring order or "saving" the state from a crisis; 4) coups stemming from factionalism between aspiring military strongmen, or arising from intra-military politics. These factional struggles usually occur when the personal ruler is suffering a political or physical decline, or alternatively when there is not a military strongman to unify the army or maintain an intra-military balance. These categories, however, are not exclusive. Coup plotters are usually motivated by mixed motives.

The first category of coups is well illustrated by the 1932 Revolution led by the Promoters. In theory, its goal was to reorganize political power in a democratic mold. Indeed, the regime attempted to present itself as effectuating a transfer of power from the king to the "people". In actuality, however, it resulted in the transfer of the monarch's power to non-royal military rulers: from the king and the aristocracy to the military ruler and civilian bureaucrats. The following coups may also be included in the first category: the 1933 Bhahon-Pibul coup which resulted in Pibul's dominance as the strongman; the 1947 Phin-Phao-Sarit coup against Pridi, aimed at restoring authoritarianism and military dominance; Sangad's coup, with the support of the Young Turks, against Seni in 1976 which restored authoritarian rule under Thanin, a civilian; and the 1991 Suchinda coup against Chatichai which terminated parliament-ary rule and attempted to restore the military's political dominance. One might also include in this category the Young Turks' coup attempts against Prem in 1981 and 1985.

In the second category of coups, strongmen-rulers strike against their own governments. This type of coup is aimed at circumventing the slow and sometimes difficult semi-democratic processes which the military strongmen have adopted to try to legitimize their rule. The second type of coup is illustrated by Sarit's coup against his protege Thanom in 1958, and Thanom's coup against his own government in 1971. Both coups were directed against difficult-to-control parliamentarians.

The third category of coups involves the restoration of order or "saving" the state from a crisis or protecting the state during a transition from one order to another. In this category, one could include Admiral Sangad's coup, with the Young Turks providing the muscles, in 1976. Sangad's coup followed a period of open, unstable, democratic politics and the massacre of student protesters by Village Scouts and the Border Patrol Police (see below). In addition, the 1932 "revolution", which entailed a transition from a monarchical to commoner joint civilian-military rule, and the 1933 Bhahol-Pibul coup, which signalled a transition from the provisional regime to a more "permanent" military order, could also be included in this category.

The fourth type of coup involves intra-military politics and rivalries between aspiring strongmen. These factional struggles usually, but not always, occur when the military ruler is suffering a political or physical decline or when there is not a military strongman-unifier to maintain a balance between military factions. The following coups could be included in this category: the 1951 Navy's "Manhattan" coup against both Pibul and the Phin-Phao-Sarit clique; Sarit's coup in 1957 directed against his rival Phao Sriyanond; and the 1977 Young Turks' coup against Thanin on behalf of Kriangsak. The 1985 Young Turks, or Colonel Manoon's, coup attempt against Prem might also be included in this category since military leaders -- Serm na Nakorn, Yos Thepasadin, and Kriangsak -- were allegedly involved.

With reference to the subordination of the military to its chief-turned-ruler, the Thai case seems to contradict this theoretical observation most of the time. The evidence, however, indicates that military strongmen, with the exception of Prem, fall -- if they do -- for reasons other than because of a coup against them. During Sarit's rule and until he died, and that of his co-successors, Thanom and Praphart, there were no coups, except the ones they themselves staged in 1958 and 1971 respectively, as noted above. The Thanom-Praphart team was not overthrown by a military coup; it was ousted due to a number of non-military, socio-economic and political factors, as will be discussed, and because the King could no longer support them. General Krit Sivara's refusal to crack down on the protesters also played a significant role. Pibul had to step down in 1944 because he had supported the Japanese, but he was not over-thrown by a military coup. From 1947-57, Pibul was, strictly speaking, not a ruling strongman, but more of a compromise figurehead leader of rival military factions vying for control.

As Hong Lysa notes, Taksin and Rama I were compelled to stimulate the economy in order to obtain needed resources. They were aided to a large extent by trade with China and an inflow of Chinese immigrants skilled in commerce, trade, shipping, navigation and other professions.⁴⁸⁴ Because of their dependency on the external environment, the Chakri kings were aware of the powerful forces reshaping their world. They were particularly alert to the dangers and opportunities extant in the Western desire for trade and commerce. Unlike the kings in Burma, they recognized the need to open up, adapt, and modernize, and they attempted to reform the country accordingly.⁴⁸⁵

The opening of the kingdom had far-reaching consequences.⁴⁸⁶ The reforms achieved what the colonial powers accomplished in Burma and Indonesia: the integration of the local economy with a global economy dominated by the West. The Thai polity was consequently exposed to Western influence. The Bowring Treaty with Britain -- signed by the initiator of the economic reforms, Rama IV (Mongkut, 1851-1868) -- further rationalized trade with the West and deepened the modernizat-ion and commercialization of the Thai economy.⁴⁸⁷ The state structure was later reformed by Rama V (Chulalongkorn).⁴⁸⁸

The new state was given what Thongchai Winichakul calls a "geo-body"⁴⁸⁹ -- a bounded territory conforming to the European concept of modern statehood. The new state was defined and guaranteed by Britain and France, and it was restructured to conform to the Western model. Chulalongkorn, for example, created a Ministry of the Interior which unified the kingdom and centralized administrative functions, and he established a Ministry of Finance to consolidate all revenue functions.⁴⁹⁰ The King also developed a Ministry of Defence and founded a modern armed forces. In addition, he created Ministries of Justice, Public Works, Education, Post and Telegraph, Agriculture, and the Ministry of the Royal Household and Royal services. The last two signified a separation of royal affairs from that of the government, a radical departure from tradition. Thus, Siam became a modern kingdom, not much different in form from modern Western monarchies. This was not a surprising development since Western advisors -- who "ran the show" as it were -- were hired to establish and operate the bureaucracy.⁴⁹¹

The royal reorganization of the state meant that there was an enlargement of the state as more common people were recruited. Thus, there arose a new body of hierarchically organized men paid by and dependent on the state, what we might call the state stratum. Because of its advantaged position and solid organizational struct-ure, the state stratum quickly became the most powerful interest group in the king-dom.⁴⁹² Their only rivals were their masters -- the monarch, princes, and the nobility, who were few in number.

Although reforms strengthened the monarchy, there emerged in time signs of elite discontent. Even as early as 1886, a petition was submitted to the king by some Western-educated princes and officials urging the adoption of a constitution.⁴⁹³ There also arose conflicts in elite circles, between high and middle bureaucrats, with the latter feeling that promotions were blocked by the former, who were primarily princes and nobles.⁴⁹⁴

The reign of Rama VII (Prajadhipok, 1925-1935) was not a happy one. His reign fell in the turbulent inter-war years and coincided with the depression. Faced with diminishing revenues, rising expenditures from the steady expansion of the state and the spectre of national bankruptcy, the king reduced the budget of all ministries, including defence, in 1926 and 1930. He also imposed a salary tax in 1932.⁴⁹⁵ These measures affected the core interests of bureaucrats who were increasingly frustrated and disenchanted with royal absolutism. This bureaucratic discontent established the context for the 1932 Revolution. The manifesto of the Promoters, as the revolution-aries were called, was bold and brave. It accused kings of treating the people as animals and it asserted that Siam did not belong to "selfish royalty and favorites". The Promoter's manifesto, moreover, proclaimed that the kingdom should be "govern-ed by the people and for the people".⁴⁹⁶ There was a radical shift in the ideological basis of rule, a shift from kings to commoners. It seemed that a democratic polity was about to emerge.

The revolution, however, was staged by a small group of official insiders. It did not involve the great mass of the Thai people. The most prominent figures of the revolution were Pridi, Pibul, Bhahon, Song Suradej, Ritti Arkhane, Prasas Pittaya-yudh, Khuang Aphaiwong and Thawee Bunyaketu.⁴⁹⁷ Hence, although the revolution had all the verbal trappings of a real one, it did not result in an order based on the people as promised. However, the decision to retain the King as a constitutional monarch, as one who reigns on behalf of the people, had an enduring consequence.

Although most revolutionaries establish republics, the Promoters did not. This was a wise step. After the revolution, the monarch served as a mediator in the frequent intra-bureaucratic, intra-elite struggles. The new role of the monarch as the constitutional ruler also had the effect, ironically, of making the monarchy more or less the guarantor of a constitutional order increasingly based on democratic forms.⁴⁹⁸ The monarch's evolving position as a supporter of democratic constitutionalism has made it difficult for any strongman-ruler since Sarit to ignore utilizing some democratic procedures. On the other hand, the autocratic aspects inherent in the monarchical form of government have also served to legitimize authoritarianism and thus the rule of strongmen.

The democratic promises of the Revolution could not be fulfilled for many reasons. First, the People's Party was really a political club and did not possess organizational depth. Like political parties in Burma, Indonesia and even today in Thailand, it was an aspirational party. Second, the Revolution occurred in a dynastic state where politics had never been a public activity. Democratization entails the opening up of politics to non-elites, and the acceptance of a plurality of political parties and societal associations. This principle was not a part of the Promoters' worldview. Third, they became embroiled in intra-elite struggles within the state sphere. In short, the Promoters represented only themselves and a few followers. The fact that the political stage was empty and the King was unable or unwilling to resist, made it easy for the Promoters to fill the state's power structures with cronies, clients, and followers.