In the UK’s political climate that we live in today, or from Western nations in general, as we are concerned with many democratic current affairs such as political candidacy, election fraud or even the validity of the vote itself, it easy for us to forget that there is a plurality of states existing under the structure of a monarchy, some without a republican or democratic framework. As of 2019, there are 44 sovereign states in the world with a monarch serving as head of state, 13 of which are in Asia. Although there are also 12 in Europe, a large fraction of these European monarchies exists within a republic that contains a functioning government. In Britain, for example, we have the Queen who serves more of a representational purpose than a diplomatic or political one. Similarly, many nations in Southeast Asia have monarchs as titular heads of states that for some, like the UK, are more performative, and for others form a vital part of the nation’s international relations and domestic policy making. Monarchies in the region include Brunei, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia and, although the country’s monarchs sit within a republic at a regional level, Indonesia still stands strong as a significant monarchy. These are all often referred to as ‘surviving monarchies’. However, does ‘surviving’ mean struggling to stay afloat in a sea of republics, or can we interpret this to resemble their resilience and permanence in the continent’s region? In order to effectively and perceptively answer this question, it is essential to take a quick tour through Southeast Asian history, and the pattern of these monarchies’ influence.
Countries in Southeast Asia have long been victims of colonialism and violent invasions from larger empires; the Japanese, British and Portuguese being the most notable. Therefore, upon entering the post-colonial era in the mid 20th century, they finally started to achieve independence, for example, Indonesia reaching independence in 1945, Malaysia in 1963 and Brunei as late as 1984. As often seen in various historical examples, after an extensive period of imperial rule, when the citizens of a state finally reach independence, chaos ensues from this power vacuum. At this point, monarchy is a fairly idyllic solution; it is a known, concrete structure that follows lineage instead of depending on the nation to form a system based on majority or minority voting. Many of these nations were also ruled by the British and formed part of the Commonwealth, at the heart of which is a British monarch, rendering the structure familiar and embedded in the middle of citizens’ cultural disorientation. Consequently, there is an inherent loyalty and attachment to monarchies in the region, stemming from fear of instability from the colonial period. European countries are fortunate enough to have not experienced this due to a lack of this kind of historical trauma. Monarchs form a political ‘safe space’ in a time of great ideological division. What we are beginning to see here is the historical and cultural symbolism monarchs represent in this handful of monarchical ‘survivor’ nations. This is potentially very difficult to try to break away from, due to its long grasp on the rulers and citizens of Southeast Asia. Extraordinarily, Thailand achieved independence in 1238 and was never actually colonized because it was made a neutral territory. Therefore, although it doesn’t have the cultural attachment as a result of imperial damage, the nation has a surviving bond to the monarchy arguably because of its longevity and historical permanence, as it established its kingdom over 800 years ago. This reflects the principles of other Southeast Asian nations aforementioned; how history can foster loyalty to a structure of governance and, though perhaps through different lenses due to variations in the colonial period, make it difficult to form change and detachment from a monarchy.
Aside from the historical dependencies on monarchies, these remaining ones constitute a significant stamp in modern politics that is possibly difficult to strip. Discussing to what extent these nations contribute to regional and international political dynamics helps us to explore how much longer these monarchies will survive. This will tell us just how powerful and tumultuous the fall of these monarchies could be. Many would argue that monarchs make a good impression on the global stage and condense a nation’s identity into one leader. This leader too is sometimes void of political affiliation or social movements because this tends to be the role of the governments that, in most monarchies today, dominate the political sphere. In this way, monarchs can represent political escapism; they are not elected nor impeached, they don’t have a major impact on policy, and are where national pride is paramount. This suggests a degree of political soundness and safety, however, the recent events in Thailand would imply something entirely different. In 2020, the King of Thailand, Maha Vajiralongkorn, received a letter of rebuke from reformists prosecuting him, and protests ensued, demanding that the monarchy is brought back under the constitution. Similar protests took place this year, with some of the largest demonstrations the nation has ever seen. The majority of the participants were also young adults. We begin to see here a flaw in the Thai monarchy faced by other SE Asian countries too, which is the large disconnect between a nation’s youth and their monarchy. If we continue to see a generational shift over the next few decades where monarchies are further pushed into irrelevancy, even as representative figures, there is very a very slim chance of their survival. Instead of fostering political soundness, the monarchy in the example of Thailand provoked havoc.
This leads us to the question: do monarchies have the power to last at all? Despite their advantages in the national political climate and historical culture, is it sustainable in a society that may crave republican states? Is there an inevitability of monarchy falling into a metaphorical grave? All the evidence aforementioned would point to yes; historical loyalty fades generationally, and the chaos brought about by the presence and overstay of monarchy in the nations is causing more damage and instability than the security once provided. Moreover, thinking through a pro-democratic, anti-monarchy lens, there is something to be said about the inevitability of democracy. Obviously, this is debatable, however, a strong point for this argument is the human tendency to express one’s opinion and demand it to be expressed in the world you live in. The American philosopher Maxine Greene compared democracy to education, saying that it “is always in the making, founded in possibilities”, this implies that people’s desires for leaders and policies which they elect or choose themselves are growing. Although monarchies can also exist within a democratic framework, it is only a matter of time before members of a nation question why a substantial percentage of their taxes is going to a family that inherits wealth by lineage or fortune, not by effort or intelligence.
So, it seems that this group of monarchies are not here to stay, or at least are likely to fade further into political irrelevancy into a small representational purpose due to the pattern of republican and anti-monarchy sentient stirring in some nations, which cannot be surpassed by the value of historically bred influence or political ease. Many of these nations already use monarchy exclusively as an arbiter if there is a collapse of government, which we can use as a signal for many citizens only needing a king or queen when hitting a political crisis, and this need is getting less and less significant.
