Democratisation in Asia-Pacific Monarchies: Drivers and Impediments

Abstract

<p>In the first decade of the 21st century, Bhutan and Tonga enacted reforms which took executive power away from the monarch and placed it the hands of an elected government. Conversely, Thailand and Nepal have faltered in their trajectory towards democracy. Thailand is stuck in a cycle of repression, popular protest, limited democracy, renewed military takeover, and constitutional revision to allow a controlled “democracy.” Nepal has broken out of a similar cycle (although without military rule), at the cost of abolishing its monarchy. This thesis looks at factors, including the monarchy’s role, which contributed to the different outcomes. The study questions Huntington’s theory of the modernising monarch’s dilemma (fear that reform would do the monarch out of a job), and suggests that, on the contrary, a democratising monarch is more likely to retain the throne, albeit with reduced power. This comparative qualitative study is based on research into primary and secondary sources, plus interviews. The thesis found that in Bhutan and Tonga strong leadership of democratisation by Kings Jigme Singye and George V greatly favoured a successful democratic transition. In both Thailand and Nepal, monarchs Bhumibol and Gyanendra resisted a democratic bargain, seeking instead to retain or regain political power, in a context where popular mobilisation and the role of the military were significant in both countries, but with considerable differences. Contrary to Huntington’s theory, monarchs in Thailand and Nepal, in seeking to avoid loss of political ascendancy suffered the opposite, although to differing degrees (one monarchy was disestablished while the other first gained ground but ultimately ceded ground to the military, reversing a pattern of monarchical dominance in the partnership). The thesis concluded that, against a historical background of special status for the monarch as symbol of national unity, and even in the face of unpromising structural conditions, monarchs who used their charisma to promote and lead a move to democracy were a critical factor in whether a transition would be successful, while securing the future of the monarchy for their heirs. Conversely, monarchs who formed strategic alliances with elite groups seeking to preserve their ascendancy, including the military, provided an excuse to autocratic groups for resisting democracy and risked either a reversion to (or retention of) autocratic rule or a transition to a democracy that did not include a place for the monarchy.</p>

Regional Liaisons and Nationalism during Transition to Democracy :

“…The National Assembly was established by Jigme Dorji Wangchuck in 1953 as a legislative and deliberative body (Mathou, 1999). Jigme Dorji Wangchuck, Bhutan's third monarch, granted to the "National Assembly" the power to overthrow the crown prince by a "vote of no confidence" in 1968 (Bogle 2019). The DDC and BDC were founded in 1981 and 1991, respectively, as a continuation of decentralisation (Chhoden, 2009).…”

“…The Chinese invasion of Tibet (1951) and the China/India conflict (1962) may have inspired the third monarch, Jigme Dorji, to consider democratisation, shifting the kingdom towards the Indian rather than the Chinese model (Bogle, 2019). Bhutan may have sought a bigger international network that expressly acknowledged it as a sovereign state out of uneasiness of India's ambitions, particularly after its 1975 acquisition of Sikkim (Ahmad, 2013).…”

“…This moved Bhutan out of "Delhi's shadow" (BBC, 2007), yet in certain quarters, Bhutan is still viewed as India's protectorate (Zongyi, 2013). Bhutan is one of India's "minnows" (Bogle, 2019).…”

“…The US, UK, and India froze military assistance. Gyanendra bought munitions from China, which enraged India (Bogle, 2019). Nepal, like Bhutan, is a part of SAARC, which promotes cooperation and coordination but not democracy.…”