Buddhist Ethics and Thailands Politics - Essay Example

Topic: Buddhist Ethics and Thailand’s Politics Introduction Buddhism has exercised a considerable geographical and historical presence in many parts of the Asian continent in some cases for considerable periods and it has also been central in the formation of particular states. It has been involved in informally in the interpretation and informing of social and political processes and this influence is still being seen in the present (McDaniel, 2009). The early Buddhist state that Buddha touched on several politically connected topics in his preaching. The extent to which the Buddha had an interaction with the political order in both the classical and contemporary states of South and Southeast Asia has been the center of critical religious studies (McDaniel, 2009). From the initial periods, Buddhism has exhibited a marked preference for monarchical types of government but monarchial claims are only one side of the coin as far as appreciating the connection between power and political authority. Thailand’s history and politics The political environment in Thailand considerably changed in June 1932 when a group of youthful scholars who had been studying outside the country and adopted principles of Western democracy carried out a bloodless coup that demanded for a shift from an absolute to a lawful kingdom. The then king, His Majesty King Prajadhipok agreed to their demands so that he could avoid any bloodshed and the absolute monarchy was abolished necessitating a transfer of power to the new form of government that was constitutional. Thailand is governed under a constitution that was adopted in 2007 after the coup that took place in 2006 where the king heads the state and the prime minister who heads the government is elected by the House of Representatives and is not allowed to serve more than eight consecutive years. The House of Representatives and the Senate whose members are elected through popular vote while others are nominated make up the national assembly. After the revolution in 1932 that brought to an end the absolute monarchy, Thailand has been rocked by intermittent military interferences, with nineteen coups and coup attempts in the years that followed (Farrelly, 2013). The concurrent military interventions after the one that took place in 1932 has meant alternations between military rule and more democratic instances even though the democratic periods were not independent from military influence. The coup culture in Thailand can be said to be the most critical contribution to the comparative debates concerning military intervention as far as politics is concerned (Farrelly, 2013). The country has a strong interplay of military and civilian politics that is the result of competing alliances of economic and bureaucratic elites as well as the desires of the leaders of the army for repetitive efforts towards consolidation of control. When explained in a simply, the manner in which the leadership of Thailand’s armed forces behave at various intermissions through history “suggests engrained anxiety about the quality and power of democratic institutions”, especially the leaders who are chosen through election who deal with their control (Farrelly, 2013). Role of Buddhism in Thailand’s politics Thailand is the only country in the globe that constitutionally stipulates that the king should be a Buddhist and an upholder of the faith and for many centuries, the religion has made an establishment in Thailand and has had an enriching effect in the lives of the Thai people in all the aspects and without the religion the country would not be what it is today (Kusalasaya, 1983). Buddhism has always faced criticism as a religion that is concerned more with personal salvation while lacking social ethics and even though this appears true, its teachings on personal conduct contain principles that can be interpreted and extended to become a social and ethical theory. Thailand possesses a good framework to consider Buddhist social ethics since its socio-political issues can be evaluated under the global market economy as well as from a third world point of view. The monks in Thailand belong to a unified hierarchical community that is controlled by the government and many monks try to be liberated through meditation while forgetting to focus sufficiently on the way the society they live in is organized. The connection between the Tai state and the sangha has is perceived as a continuous dialogue even though the state is considered to have always had a louder voice with the sangha operating as a tool of state power and legitimation (McCargo, 2012). The dissident monastic traditions especially the Lao forest tradition were curtailed in a systematic fashion which enabled the authorities to crush them in Bangkok. Through past couple of decades, Buddhism has acted in a conservative and ethno-nationalistic manner and this stance is seen in the increasing demands for Buddhism to become a national religion in Thailand. The instructions associated with Buddhism intensely do not agree with the use of ferocity and considers it as being a product of greediness, animosity and misconception. Buddhism is of the perception that drawing of a sharp boundary between self and others results in the construction of self-image that is able to see all that all that is not of ‘me and mine’ as being alien and threatening traits. Early literature associated with Buddhism contains many references to war and since war involves killing and killing is a breach of the first precept, it makes ethically wrong to fight in both offensive and defensive wars (Keown, 2005). In case a Buddhist is vulnerable, he is “encouraged to practice patience” and there numerous other tales of prototypical endurance and practices meant to encourage open-mindedness and forbearance (Keown, 2005). The monastic politics that are seen in Thailand are a reflection of the nonspiritual politics that are in Thailand which entail far-reaching disunions and suspicions concerning the future. While continuing to perform rituals that support national loyalty, many monks are still conflicted in the political affiliations and seek some kind of renewal in the Buddhist order as well as in the broader Thai society. As long as the monastic gerontocracy continually monopolizes power, any kind of renewal will be difficult to achieve (McCargo, 2012). Thailand has not experienced class conflicts that may have led to political violence or mass uprising and in addition the ones who are in support and against Thaksin movements have come from various social and economic sections. The monarch has been very careful in avoiding any unconstitutional actions and this could be seen at the height of the crisis that occurred in 2008 when there was a violent suppression in front of parliament and the occupation of the airport by the anti-Thaksin protestors. There was no intervention by the government and even many people wanted the king to make an intervention, he did not indulge their wish but instead let the constitutional process deal with the issue. Conclusion The democracy in Thailand has been very fragile and in the event that the country was in a form of turmoil or crisis, the people had the hope that the monarch would instigate some form of intervention. Even though the king is concerned with the instability, he continually resolves the issues through egalitarian and lawful ways. Previously, the military staged an intervention when the country experienced political crises but it could not be able to launce political reforms that could consolidate the democracy of Thailand. Military coups are becoming less favored and the military has the knowledge that coups cannot be the solutions to the problems that are experienced in the country. Consequently, the democratic development of Thailand will be dependent on the people and the monarchical institution that has been that has always brought the people together will be at the center of the reconciliation of the conflict through processes of democratic development which make them more peaceful and sustainable. References Farrelly, N. (2013). Why democracy struggles: Thailands elite coup culture 1. Australian Journal Of International Affairs, 67(3), 281--296. Keown, D. (2005). Buddhist ethics (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kusalasaya, K. (1983). Buddhism in Thailand. Its Past And Its Present (Candy, Ceylon: Buddhist Publication Society, 1965). McCargo, D. (2012). The Changing Politics of Thailands Buddhist Order. Critical Asian Studies, 44(4), 627--642. McDaniel, J. (2009). Buddhism, Power and Political Order--Edited by Ian Harris. Religious Studies Review, 35(2), 144--145. Read More