many are going to worry about the loss of the benevolent veto that
Bhumibol wields, an extra-constitutional apparatus that stabilises a
politically unstable country. yet it's a riddle that's perplexed me for a
long time, a discussion that Thailand avoids both in law and in culture
- was his presence part of the reason the country hasn't been able to
develop into a sustainable democracy? or did it prevent a slide into the
kind of authoritarian regimes seen in the region, Africa and the
Americas? or is the Thai situation simply too unique considering the
people's adoration for their king?
No comments:
Post a Comment