สรุปสาระสำคัญจากปาฐกถานำ “How to Save Thailand’s Constitutional Democracy” จากเสวนาสาธารณะ “บทบาทตุลาการกับการธำรงระบอบประชาธิปไตยอันมีพระมหากษัตริย์ทรงเป็นประมุขให้ยั่งยืน” ซึ่งจัดโดยคณะนิติศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ วันเสาร์ที่ 15 พฤษภาคม 2564 เวลา 13.30-16.00 น.
ผู้ปาฐกถานำ
- Professor Tom Ginsburg, Leo Spitz Professor of International Law, Ludwig and Hilde Wolf Research Scholar, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago Law School ผู้แต่งหนังสือ “How to Save a Constitutional Democracy”
ผู้สรุปสาระสำคัญและเรียบเรียง
- นายกรณัฐ จันทร์วีระเสถียร นักศึกษาชั้นปีที่ 3 คณะนิติศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ (ผู้สรุปสาระสำคัญ)
- ผู้ช่วยศาสตราจารย์ ดร.กรศุทธิ์ ขอพ่วงกลาง ผู้ช่วยคณบดีฝ่ายพัฒนานักศึกษา (ผู้เรียบเรียง)
Constitutional monarchy could be considered as a consistent form of government. It has the monarch (the King or Queen) with the constitution governing the system. There are 43 countries in the world that adopt this system (about 23 percent) including the democracy and rich countries such as Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and Australia. In general, the monarch in the system of constitutional monarchy is not the head of government. In other words, the monarch tends not to control the legislative or executive branches of the country.
Most countries shared similar history with European monarch. During the 19th century, the economy became complexed. Then, the monarch had to bargain with the parliament and civilians. This moves from the system of absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy. The monarch tended to give in and agreed to transfer power to the parliament. It could be a result of an intense bargaining process. There were some countries that the monarchy did not give in. However, these countries end up being the republic, nowadays. Therefore, the constitutional monarchy is a gradual transfer of political power from the monarch to civilian or parliament institutions.
Constitution monarchy could disappear due to several reasons. The first reason is the military coup. The monarch might empower the military but the military, in turn, got rid of the monarch. This occurred in several Middle East countries. The second reason is revolution. For instance, the monarchy of Laos was eventually ended in 1975 because of the revolution. The third reason is integration with other nations nearby.
Constitution monarchy could not go back to an absolute monarchy. The example could be seen from the constitutional monarchy of Nepal. There was pressure in Nepal during the end of the second world war. There was a brief period of constitutional monarchy. In 1960, the King of Nepal reinstated the direct rule for about 3 decades. In 1990, there was the pressure from pro-democracy movement. In this regard, the King gave in to the change and survive. There was a rebellion in the late 1990s with violence. One of the demands was to get rid of the monarchy. The civilians did not get along with that, so the monarchy survive. In early 2000, the monarchy nearly ended because the Crown Prince killed most of his relatives. The only one left was his uncle who took back the power of the monarchy and tried to turn it into absolute monarchy, repressing the population. Then, in 2008, the civilians and the rebellion got together to end the monarchy. From this, it can be seen that the move from constitutional monarchy to absolute monarchy did not end well.
The preservation of constitutional monarchy can be done through the preservation of democracy and monarchy. These two things go together very well. Monarchy plays two important functions for democracy.
Firstly, constitutional monarchy protects from populist institutions. The rise of charismatic populist challenges constitutional monarchy. The charismatic populist is the person who claimed to be the only one who represents people and knows the needs of people. This person tends not to trust the court, the media, and the bureaucracy. This kind of person ended the constitutional monarchy in many countries such as Hugo Chávez of Venezuelan or Viktor Orbán of Hungary. These persons almost control all of the political systems. Constitution monarchy keeps the charismatic populists from taking the whole systems of the country. The monarch has already intake the job of embodying people and these charismatic populists could not take this job.
Secondly, the monarchy has the power that could be used in the moment of emergency. The monarchy could say something which people will follow because it is a certain kind of the focal point. In a true crisis, this function is necessary. In 1992, the prior King of Thailand used this kind of power to call for the end of violence between coup leaders and protesters. This is the critical history of Thailand. Without the monarch, the violence could continue. The monarch could clarify the moment of emergency and protect the constitutional democracy.
The way to save constitutional monarchy depends on the types of threats. If the threat invades from outside, it is a little way to do bases on the constitution in the country. If the threat is an attempt to return absolute monarchy, the constitution could and should play the role to protect the monarchy. The was to save constitutional monarchy is the same way as the way to save constitution democracy. As the constitutional monarchy survives, the constitution democracy survives. All institutions in society have to obey the rule of laws and the constitution. It is also necessary to have certain democratic freedoms in society such as the right to free speech, the right to peaceful association and peaceful demonstration. These are the essence of constitutional democracy which could lead to the survival of the constitutional monarchy. When people can not speak out about the system, the pressure tends to rise for more extreme reactions. The ability to discuss the issues is essential in any successful democracy. The government should not be afraid of criticism. Sometimes criticism is healthy because it could suggest ways to improve the current system.
