It is true that the majority of Thai people love the monarchy. But there may be some sectors that do not love the monarchy. This is understandable and not out of the ordinary. We should be able to accept the divergent feelings of people in society.

At present, there are two differing opinions regarding the issue of the “protection of the institution.”

One side deems that Article 112 should be amended and the rules, ideology, and structure of the institution of the monarchy should be reformed to be in line with the ideology of democracy with the king as head of state under the constitution in accordance with the intention of 1932. These reforms will position the institution of the monarchy above, or beyond, politics.  They would close the door completely on the use of the institution as an instrument of political struggle and/or an instrument to launch a coup.

The other side does not see any problems with Article 112.  The measure should not be amended and neither the rules nor the structure of the institution of the monarchy should be reformed. They view their “mission” as to come out to oppose the proposals of the other side. This mission is the “mission to protect the institution.”

However, when examined directly, the first side is not thinking of toppling the monarchy. They maintain the value of the institution of the monarchy to Thai society. The institution of the monarchy ought to continue to exist. Yet they want it to be truly above politics, like in civilized countries such as English, Japan, etc.  The other side asserts that the monarchy must continue to exist as well.

So then why is there a conflict centered on the issue of protecting the institution??
In order to address this problem, I propose a “Guide for the Protection of the Institution” containing the following principle practices:

A.    Negative measures that should cease to be taken:

1.    Must not use the institution as an instrument of politics. For example, no citing the institution to attack one’s political enemies. No calling for the soldiers to launch a coup to protect the institution. 

2.    Must not use the accusation of “topple the monarchy” against those with different political views and/or use Article 112 to perform a witch hunt against them.

3.    Must not accuse people with different opinions of being ungrateful, disloyal, lacking understanding of Thai-ness, being not-Thai or driving them out of the country.  Personal matters of people on the side that thinks differently should not be used to attack them.

4.    From now on, the military must stop citing the institution in order to launch a coup.  They must understand that in the modern world the institution of the monarchy is only secure under a democratic regime in which the “the people are the holders of sovereign power.” Citing the institution in order to create a dictatorial regime is the most insensate destruction of the institution and democracy!

B.    Positive measures that should be taken from now on:

1.    Must have tolerance in encountering differences of thinking about politics. Try to listen to different thinking. Listen to learn new words and grasp the points, proposals, principles, and reasons of another side clearly. Then only use reason to argue with them. Do not look for an avenue to imply that the other side is breaking the law.

2.    Must have an open debate, grounded in utmost reason, about what kind of ideology should guide Thai society: “royalist ideology of absolute monarchy-directed democracy” (meaning the ideology of rule in which the monarchy cannot be touched like in the time of absolute monarchy, the monarchy has power over democracy, the monarchy is used as an instrument of policies and coups continue as always) or “democratic ideology in which the king is head of state under the constitution” (meaning the ideology of rule in which the monarchy is truly above politics, the monarchy is not used as an instrument of politics, coups do not, and the people are truly the holders of sovereign power in line with the intention of 1932).

3.    Must have a public hearing on the summary of the debate in #2 above. Whichever side the majority of the people agree with, the parliament should proceed in line with their will. 

If every side adheres to and rigorously follows this “Guide to Protect the Institution,” the institution of the monarchy will securely exist as a pair with a securely democratic regime with the king as head of state under the constitution. The people will always be the true “holders of sovereign power.”
 

Translated by Tyrell Haberkorn.