Patrick Jory

Study of political science is often rooted in ‘the classics’ of ancient Greece… but what use is Greek philosophy half a world away? Four thousand miles from where Plato outlined his Republic, the Siddhartha Gautama was preaching a new religion: Buddhism. Though temporally coincident, their work did not overlap; yet beyond the similarities in Buddhist and Greek thought, each bore a tremendous influence on the development and conceptualization of political systems to those who heard them. Patrick Jory’s work Thailand’s Theory of Monarchy shows how one particular tale of the Buddha shaped political leadership for millennia to come – and how to understand Southeast Asian politics in that light.
The dramatic expansion of European colonialism in the late 1800s brought a variety of changes to political systems in Africa and Asia. Those polities, however, never exactly copied from the imported Westphalian system – they were always modified to better fit local traditions and customs, allowing colonial authorities to coopt existing power structures instead of having to create new ones. Just as Jeffery Herbst showed the continuing influence of pre-colonial politics in contemporary African states, so Jory finds a strong residual presence of pre-colonial traditions among the politics of Southeast Asia.
Within Buddhist tradition, there are 547 jatakas, stories of the Buddha’s prior incarnations; of those, the last ten are the most important, each representing one of Buddhism’s ten virtues (purities) that the Buddha’s spirit reached. The most important virtue, giving (charity), is represented by the story of the Prince Vessantara, who gave freely everything he had. Unlike most jatakas, which were available only to literate monks, the story of Vessantara was performed – annually, and in the vernacular, as it provided a critical frame of reference in which the monarch ruled.
Jory argues that, geopolitically, the low density of population and high density of jungle rendered difficult projecting authority: Charles Tilly’s theory of state formation through consolidating coercive power won’t work. Instead, rulers enticed cooperation – and demonstrated their moral purity – through gift-giving. This had the dual benefit of legitimizing the monarch, analogous to the western ‘divine right of kings,’ as well as justifying their comparative wealth: for one cannot give what one does not have. Even in the original story, Vessantara retains a portion of the shower of riches from heaven for the treasury.
With colonial authorities subsuming Thailand’s neighbors – Britain to the east, France to the west – Thai kings recognized that moral superiority wouldn’t hold up to gunpowder. Keeping their country free of colonial domination required relegating the jatakas from central tenets of faith to “foreign folk tales” – Buddha was not Thai, after all – in just a single generation. Monarchal succession became defined through primogeniture rather than the elevation of the most deserving member of the royal family, as any perceived instability would lead to conquest.
The text gives considerable attention to the ‘new edition’ of the Jatakas, initiated by King Chulalongkorn and promulgated by his successors in the first few decades of the 20th century. These were translated in to the Thai vernacular, with framing remarks added that characterized them as ‘literature’ rather than serious religious texts, and arguing (with the backing of western scholars) that the attributing them to the Buddha was apocryphal at best; the majority, it was said, was composed by later authors to provide context.
Yet the influence of the Thai monarch as the “perfect man” lives on. No government has ever eliminated the role of religion from society. With its income threatened in the colonial era, the Thai monarchy sought to encourage citizens to become self-reliant and temper expectations of monarchal beneficence. Yet popular view never fully distinguished the monarch from good deeds – and, even today, developmental works across the country are invariably conducted in his name, and attributed to his grace.
While the title points to its geographic scope, the text would do well to consider comparative monarchal approaches within the region. To be sure, the Thai monarchy is unique among them, having never fully succumbed to colonialization. But Buddhist thought dominated the region for millennia, implying that analogies should exist among Lao, Khmer, and Bamar populations of the region – to name a few – particularly given the continued influence of the story of Vessantara (and Buddha’s legacy generally) in Thailand and elsewhere.
The text touches upon the influence of colonial scholars, whose studies of the region’s history and culture would be appropriate by nationalist movements and, in effect, become the accepted interpretation of history. These scholars found that the Jatakas were analogous to similar stories in Hindu, Greek, or Nordic traditions. It is known that contacts between Hellenic and Indic civilizations existed in the time of Buddha – the links between the strong old world civilizations would do well to be explored in greater detail. Could this link run contrary to Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations? If so, can it be used to bring peoples closer together? These questions are yet unanswered.
In modern-day Thailand, the institution of the monarchy remains in flux. With the passing of the revered King Bhumibol (Rama IX) just months after the book’s publication, and his successor being somewhat less thought of, the role of the monarch in Thai society is likely to be reexamined. In this, the legend of Vessantara is almost sure to play a central role. The new king will need to overcome societal concerns through actions, which in turn will use history as a guide. By sponsoring charitable or developmental projects, like his father, and like the famed prince millennia ago, the new king will perpetuate the only Buddhist monarchy to survive in to the 21st century.
A comprehensive understanding of systems of governance requires expanding beyond the traditions of Europe. Dr. Jory has a long history documenting Thai polity, and ‘translating’ it for western audiences; his drawing from primary and close secondary sources for this work helps bring a great deal of clarity. While the ‘state’ may be understood, its machinations can vary substantially, and using a western lens to interpret Southeast Asian politics isn’t likely to generate a useful result. After all, “the relationship between ruler and ruled, political legitimacy […] are never far from the center of public debate in Thailand today.”… (meer)