Buddhism, Democracy and Identity in Thailand - Taylor & Francis ...

168 DEMOCRATIZATIONScholars such as Keyes and Swearer have argued optimistically that ThaiBuddhism now constitutes a ‘broad church’, reflecting the pluralism of widerThai society. In support of this argument, they cite the emergence of movementssuch as Santi Asoke and Wat Thammakai, the political successesenjoyed by Chamlong Srimuang, and dissident voices such as SulakSivaraksa. Unfortunately, these arguments are simply not credible, sincethey adopt far too benign a view of the role of the Thai state. There isample evidence that the Thai state is willing to use all means at its disposalto defend a highly conservative, orthodox and authoritarian mode ofBuddhism that is totally at variance with the diversity and vitality of thewider society, and entirely at odds with the open political order convincinglyushered in during the 1990s. Chastened by the blood on its hands over the May1992 demonstrations, the world’s most coup-happy military now remainslargely confined to the barracks. Undermined by the 1997 economic crisisthat reduced public confidence in their management, and intimidated by thepowerful political forces of Thaksin and his party, the once-powerful bureaucracyis on the defensive. Yet the sangha, protected by the umbilical cord whichlinks it to the untouchable monarchy, remains substantially unchallenged.Thailand’s Buddhist order has not yet been made to face the consequencesof its incompetence, intolerance and venality. Thailand has been experiencinggradual political liberalization since the 1970s, not because of the prevailingreligious climate, but in spite of the deep conservatism of its Buddhist order.NOTES1. Ian Harris, ‘Buddhism and Politics in Asia: The Textual and Historical Roots’, in Ian Harris(ed.), Buddhism and Politics in Twentieth Century Asia (London: Continuum, 1999), p.19.2. Larry Diamond, ‘Political Culture and Democracy’, in Larry Diamond (ed.), Political Cultureand Democracy in Developing Countries (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1993), p.24.3. Charles F. Keyes, ‘Buddhist Politics and Their Revolutionary Origins in Thailand’, InternationalPolitical Science Review, Vol.10, No.2 (1989), pp.121–42.4. Best known as the ruler depicted in ‘The King and I’, Rama IV, or King Mongkut, spent alengthy period in the monkhood before ascending to the throne, and established a new, stricterBuddhist sect.5. Keyes (note 3) p.137.6. Interview with Suwanna Satha-anand, Chulalongkorn University, 22 November 1995.7. Peter Jackson, Buddhism, Legitimation and Conflict: The Political Functions of Urban ThaiBuddhism (Singapore: ISEAS, 1989), p.224.8. Somboon Suksamran, Buddhism and Political Legitimacy, Chulalongkorn UniversityResearch Report Series No.2 (Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University, 1993), p.63.9. Benedict R. O’G. Anderson, ‘Studies of the Thai State: The State of Thai Studies’, in EliezerB. Ayal (ed.), The Study of Thailand (Athens, OH: Ohio Center for International Studies,Southeast Asia Program, 1978), p.199.10. For the best overview of Thai politics from the 1930s to the 1970s, see John L.S. Girling,Thailand: Society and Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981).11. For the most detailed examination, see J.L. Taylor, Forest Monks and the Nation-State(Singapore: ISEAS 1993).