As the paper focuses on the genesis of the so-called “Thai-style democracy”, what are the characteristics of Thai society and culture of the day that makes it so? In an even more hierarchical society of the past based on status and seniority, the events do point to rigorous negotiations between different generations of Thai elites with very different worldviews. The king and nobility seemed influenced by European colonial practices in the country’s immediate neighbours (both in colonizing practices and administratively) while the younger generation inspired by European political practices at home in London and Paris.

And hence to make the quick parallels to events of the present seems over-stretched (which may be covered in the author’s book?). To imply that “Thai-style democracy” has not made much progress on democracy, rule-of-law, human rights, media freedom (even on corruption I dare say) even more so (for instance, if Thailand’s media freedom is not so narrowly judged (by mainly foreigners) by the very problematic application of lese majeste law, this is still one of the freest country in Southeast Asia where people can publicly vilify any persons up to the very high social hierarchy of the privy councillors). Let’s also not conveniently forget the very high points of the 1997 Constitution as an achievement of this Thai democracy, quickly undermined by politicians (well, and the Thais themselves) over the next decade who do not aspire to its lofty intentions.

People seem to cry doom and groom for the prospects of “Thai-style democracy” in the next election and thereafter, I don’t see that as the case. Even in the possible scenario of Pheu Thai’s (essentially Thaksin’s) retaking the reigns of power, a re-ignited romance between business oligarchs and military men is certainly not off the cards in Pheu Thai’s brand of (blanket?) “reconciliation”. Yes, this could lead to a divorce with the portion of the Red Shirt membership – but so the old saying in Thai-style democracy goes “anything is possible” (the PAD’s divorce from the military and Democrats is a case in point).

Overall, I highly commend the research and the generally even-handed treatment of the subject – but the rather pessimistic conclusions may be drawn too soon. The story of “Thai-style democracy” will probably transpire for a long time yet for both better and worse. In the Thai universe characterized by (cultural?) indecisiveness and caution of both King Prajadhipok and AjarnPridi (due to the myriad factors and surrounding personalities as raised by the author), their legacies will surely be revisited again and again (hopefully many times by the capable hands of Professor Federico himself).

for a long time I thought that I was quite lonely having and publishing a very similar view of King Prajadhipoks life, somehow an outsider, black sheep. But now I read a lot of elements which I have been publishing in German and writing in a my German language script of a planned book and I feel very much relieved. You helped me already a second time to feel not alone and I am very thankful for your postings, inspiring me a lot.

I was particularly struck by the phrase “walking backwards into a khlong” introduced late in the article. Surrounded by a pack of soi dogs in a Bangkok outer suburb one night, I did precisely that, unaware that the khlong was behind me. But when I emerged looking,feeling and acting like The Monster from the Black Lagoon, the dogs ran away yelping in terror. Perhaps there could be an analogy here.