Soul of the Nation

The tension, as the cliché goes, was so thick one could almost cut it with a knife. It was the night of Wednesday, 20 May 1992. After three days of street violence, Bangkok was bracing itself for a bloody showdown between troops and demonstrators. Rumours of conflicts within the military abounded. The situation seemed hopeless. More and more people began to pray for the kind of political miracle that had taken place nearly two decades before, during the 1973 student uprising against military rule. At that time, just as the situation threatened to escalate with considerably more violence and bloodshed, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the ninth monarch of the ruling Chakri Dynasty, made a dramatic television appearance, which restored public order and resolved the crisis.

Eventually, their prayers were answered. The main protagonists, Prime Minister General Suchinda Kraprayoon and Major Chamlong Srimuang, the de facto leader of the anti-government protest movement, were summoned to the palace. The royal audience was broadcast worldwide. With the two prostrate on the floor before him, King Bhumibol quietly gave a lecture on the public interest and the need to avoid an impending “catastrophe” and made a “request” that they “sit down and face the facts together in a conciliatory manner, and not in a confrontational manner, to find a way to solve the problem, because our country does not belong to any one or two persons, but belongs to everyone”.

Once more there was a miracle. The crisis was instantly diffused. The two powerful protagonists backed down. Battle-ready military units returned to the barracks. Demonstrators dispersed. A few days later, Suchinda resigned, and power was peacefully transferred to an interim government under the respected Anand Panyarachun, who later transferred key military leaders and called a general election.

It was extraordinary. In June 1932 royal absolutism was overthrown and replaced by a constitutional monarchy. Since then, the Thai king's royal powers and prerogatives have been clearly defined and limited in a manner similar to those of constitutional monarchs in Europe.