|
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Mercado: Kingly power
By Juan L. Mercado
“Comparisons,” it’s been said, “are odious.” But they can instruct. And the difference between the kings of Thailand and Nepal is startling---and relevant to Filipinos.
We’ve had leaders who strut as if they’re “kings.” Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos always insisted on throne-like chairs at public functions. And today’s pretenders---elected and aspiring---posture as monarchs while claiming to be masa.
“If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me,” Macbeth muses in one of Shakespeare’s tragedies.
Thailand and Nepal have constitutional monarchs. But similarity ends there.
On one hand is the world’s longest reigning monarch: King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand. Born in the US in 1927, he came to the throne in 1946. He is the ninth king of the Chakri Dynasty, established in the 18th century.
“When King Bhumibol speaks, his people listen,” Asiaweek observed. “In an era when monarchies are on the wane, his pictures appear in every home...(reflecting) the enormous respect and affection the King has built up over five decades of working to improve his country...”
On the other hand is Nepal’s King Gyanendra. This tall, severe man, in daura-suruwal pants, returned in a “bizarre” way to the throne, in a Hindu kingdom that traditionally revered its monarchs as living gods.
He was crowned as a three-year old, then left behind by his grandfather, King Tribhuvan, who fled to India with his brother, the young Birendra. He reigned for three months. Tribhuvan returned after India negotiated a settlement and his grandson ultimately returned to the throne.
“Gyanendra has never been as popular as his brother and predecessor, King Birendra, who was massacred along with several other royals in 2001,” observers note.
Today, fewer people in Nepal listen when King Gyanendra speaks. People Power forced him to reinstate the parliament he abolished in 2002. A constituent assembly, which meet in three months, will consider a demand to abolish the monarchy.
Once unthinkable proposals for establishing a republic are bandied about openly.
How does one explain this startling difference? Look at their differing lifestyles.
King Gyanendra has tenuous contact with Nepalese people. He is remote and his programs patchy. He clubbed an admittedly ineffectual democratic government to its knees but offered little change from infighting that saw 14 prime ministers in 14 years.
A brutal Maoist revolt, meanwhile, grew after peace talks flopped. “His thinking that everything can be solved by guns is part of the problem,” says Shyam Shrestha, editor of Nepali weekly Mulyankan. All power rests with the king. No decision or comment is made without his approval.
But that seems to be slipping away.
In contrast, the 18-year old King Bhumibol started his reign as a ceremonial figurehead. He had “no more power than it took to cut a ceremonial ribbon to open a new highway,” Joseph Wright from University of Michigan points out in his book: The Balancing Act.
But he poured out his time and talents in reaching the poor with programs and projects, even when Thai politicians, like Phibul Songkhran sought to undercut his reach.
The king “from his earliest days was never content to be the dignified stalking horse for a corrupt power elite,” Wright notes. He defined a new role for the monarchy by becoming a neutral and transparent bridge between elite and people.
“It’s quite normal that people should use the king,” he said in a BBC interview. “But the way of using depends on us also, that we are doing things that are good for the country, and (that) we don't have any secrets.”
Only in extreme circumstances does the king touch the levers of power today. “But when he does, the intervention is decisive,” Asiaweek notes.
As a United Nations officer stationed in Thailand for 17 years, we saw instances of this. In 1992, unelected prime minister Gen. Suchinda Kraprayoon and rival Chamlong Srimuang knelt while he told them to stop the bloody fighting. They obeyed.
Earlier, he denounced summary executions of alleged drug addicts---a point Mayor Tomas Osmeña and Cebu City vigilantes may appreciate. He raised his voice against abuses of Muslim minorities. These were heeded.
And Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra stepped down after the King called him in over the scandal sale of major telecom holdings to Singapore.
King Bhumibol rejected calls to intervene himself in the deadlock caused by the opposition’s boycott of snap elections called by Thaksin. But he had uncharacteristically blunt words for the April 2 elections. “Having an election with only one candidate running is impossible. This is not a democracy.”
“If you don’t help to make democracy move forward, it will be the country’s downfall,” he told the judges, whom he had summoned to his seaside palace. “It’s up to the courts to solve this “mess.”
The judges will “consider all legal aspects” of carrying out the king’s wishes, Jaran Pakditanakul, secretary-general of the Supreme Court said. The opposition party signaled they'd participate in the new polls.
“The Thai elite can not continue to rely on the 11th hour rescues that King Bhumibol has, in the past, provided,” Wright asserts. Potential for progress exists “provided the nation’s leaders can follow their sovereign's lead and rise above self interest.”
That could have been written for Filipinos too. We’re ready to follow a sovereign who can rise above “self interest.” And that’s not Glo, Erap, Noli, Franklin, Joe, Ping or Joma.
(juan_mercado@pacific.net.ph)
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (April 30, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
