The Journal of the Siam Society Vol. LXIV, Part 1-2, 1976 - Khamkoo

KING PRAJAIJIIIPOK AND THR APPLE CART 15
The Promoters were a minority of civilian and military leaders.
Extremism might be modified by fear of foreign intervention, though the
British denied they would intervene, and the threat could rebound on
those who used it. Extremism might also be modified perhaps by
threats of abdication. But some of the leftrwing would have found that
welcome, particularly if it could be made to seem the result of the King's
own decision, so that they did not incur blame from peasant masses
loyal to the King. The best check on extremism and the best route to
constitutional monarchy, King Prajadhipok believed, would be free
elections, which might at once make Siamese politics more democratic
and more conservative. Yet the Promoters, entrenched in Senate and
Executive Committee, believed this, too. The King had only the same
limited means to bring them round. The threat of foreign intervention
was unhelpful. Threats of abdication had some value, but ultimately
the bluff was called. The King's 'main thesis' was 'that he bad given up
his absolute power to the whole Thai people and not to any group'. 5 I
His function would be purely ceremonial only when Siam was truly
democratic. 52 His prercoup constitutional plans resembled those of the
Promoters in their gradualist approach to democracy. But there were
significant differences. The King had planned meantime to retain a
real veto power on legislation and to choose tbe nominated members of
of the Assembly. With the Promoters installed, those plans were
difficult to realise. If they proved impossible, the King would have lost
his powers to the Promoter's, not to the people. Earlier and freer
elections would become essential.
Contemporaries were often impatient with the King, and historians
have misunderstood him. He should have mobilised popular support in
the conservative cause, it is implied. His poor, eyesight-he had cataracts
in both eyes-and his fear of physical violence contributed to his failure
to do so. He was, as he himself admitted, indecisive: 'he himself once
told me that he saw both sides of every question, which quality made
him a philosopher but not a resolute monarch•.s3 But surely the fact
51) Chula Chakrabongse, p. 185.
52) Thawatt, p. 251.
P] Chula CIJ.akrabon¥se, p. 156,