Princess to go to court

The idea of a member of the royal family appearing in court is unusual, anywhere. We can only recall one such attempt in Thailand, back in 1933, as described in Kasian Tejapira’s Commodifying Marxism: The Formation of Modern Thai Radical Culture, 1927-1958:

That case is also briefly mentioned in this set of documents (clicking opens a largish PDF) as a case involving the alleged libel of Pridi Phanomyong by the then king.

So it is that a report at The Guardian is of interest for it covers a corruption case and the involvement of King Juan Carlos’ daughter, Princess Cristina, who is now “formally named as a suspect in a court investigation.” This case is interesting for Spain maintains a lese majeste law and has notions of inviolability as well.

The report states that this “dramatic decision by investigating magistrate José Castro will see the princess called to give evidence at a courthouse in Palma de Mallorca, capital of the Balearic Isles, on 27 April.” It adds that the “decision is a blow for King Juan Carlos, as a once model royal family begins to buckle under the weight of public scandal.” The case revolves around alleged special deals by her husband and the access and apparent impunity his royal connection provided.

Left and republican parliamentarians have “welcomed the decision to make the princess – who will visit the court on a Saturday so that special security measures can be set up – declare before the investigating magistrate.”

 

Royal on trial

A report at the IHT blog might be of interest to readers. It is about a case that has a son-in-law of Spain’s King Juan Carlos being tried on a massive corruption case. While the report is complaining that the Spanish government is trying to protect the royal, the idea of a royal being dragged into court in Thailand is pretty much unthinkable. One “social protections” enjoyed by the monarchy in Thailand is an uncanny ability to be beyond the reach of the law. Some of this is “constitutional” as in the statement on the king being above the law, some is “legal” as in the use of the lese majeste law, but most is a “social protection” that grows from vast economic and political power and the fear this produces. Some quotes from the IHT story:

In the post-modern world of the Spanish monarchy, a picture is worth a mighty kingdom.

… Iñaki Urdangarin, the Duke of Palma … is being questioned in private by an investigating judge with a couple of dozen lawyers present, extraordinary measures have been prepared to prevent leaks of photographs.

National police will be posted next door to the courtroom, and a device will be used to jam wireless Internet services and mobile telephones — preventing untoward leaks. Even the lawyers will have to turn over their mobile phones, cameras and recorders. Laptops and and tablet computers will be permitted with documents on the case — though lawyers have been warned against turning their iPads into cameras or recorders.

A great part of the security process seems designed to prevent the publication of a bleak image of a royal in the court dock….

Comparing kings

Readers will certainly be interested in a new paper published at the open-access Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs. Serhat Ünaldi has an article entitled “Modern Monarchs and Democracy: Thailand’s Bhumibol Adulyadej and Juan Carlos of Spain,” which can be downloaded as a PDF. The abstract says:

The history of democracy is typically a history of struggle against monarchs and other such autocrats. The elevation of one person over others by virtue of blood and birth has come to be seen as anachronistic; yet some monarchies have managed to survive to this day. This paper analyses two examples of the uneasy coalition between popular sovereignty and royal leadership that is constitutional monarchy. Whereas Juan Carlos of Spain has been described as having steered Spain away from dictatorship, Bhumibol of Thailand has come under scrutiny for allegedly lacking a principled approach to democracy. I argue that structural as much as personal factors influenced the ways in which the two monarchies were legitimised – one by positively responding to the modern aspirations of the king’s subjects, giving him a “forward legitimacy,” the other by revitalising the king’s traditional charisma and opting for “backward legitimacy.”

Monarchies in comparison

Personal or public?

Readers may recall that back in April this year, PPT posted regarding the scandal facing the Spanish king at that time and some of the historical coincidences that haunted the Spanish and Thai kings. At the Council on Foreign Relations blog, Joshua Kurlantzick has a post with a contemporary comparison.

Referring to a Washington Post article of a few days ago, Kurlantzick writes of how European austerity programs are impacting the monarchies there. Kurlantzick reminds readers of the criticism of the Spanish king, Juan Carlos, for his 19th Century and colonial-like penchant for shooting wild animals in Africa (see PPT’s earlier post). That criticism “led to a major backlash against the monarch.” The blog article states that that event has seen calls for “Juan Carlos to drastically cut his annual spending and to be much more transparent about how he is spending money on royal activities.”

While the well-funded and seemingly well-fueled escapes of the youngest British prince/playboy in Las Vegas may suggest that the austerities are not cutting too deep for some, the calls for greater transparency for the more controversial and big spending and well-connected royals has been growing, while establishment figures and self-serving royalists seek to protect the extravagant royals.

Kurlantzick then turns to Thailand:

Though it may be able to hold off such inquiries for now, via harsh lèse-majesté laws and the genuine reverence the monarchy enjoys, the Thai monarchy could learn some lessons from Juan Carlos. Like the Spanish king, the current Thai king, Bhumibol Adulyadej, has truly earned a high degree of respect from many Thais over the course of his lengthy reign. But that respect, and the fact that the king’s reign is strongly supported by a core of arch-royalists in Bangkok, does not mean that questions are not increasingly being raised, in private, about the royal family’s finances.

Kurlantzick’s view of “respect” is couched in terms that don’t obliterate history in the way that several news agencies have long done, and the point he makes about transparency for royal finances is an important one. While he believes that “royals seem to understand this [need] in Thailand,”we are not so sure the royals are in any way keen on opening up about health, wealth or much else.

His evidence for feeling that the Thai royals have been given a message is the “recent, royally-approved biography of the king’s life” that he says “contained significantly more information on the Crown Property Bureau “than any royally-approved book had in the past.” That’s true, but it is a bit of closing the gate after the horse has bolted given the high profile of an academic account (get it here) and the related Forbes story of the CPB. Essentially, the book is a royalist and palace attempt to steer the public account of the monarchy, post-Handley (and his The King Never Smiles).

Kurlantzick believes that as the average Thai knows something about the monarchy’s wealth, that knowledge “only fuels a hunger for more —though Thais will not say so in public. On social media sites, and in private conversations, discussion of the Crown Property Bureau now is far more common than in the past.”

Juan Carlos has apparently “announced he would be taking a pay cut voluntarily, according to the Washington Post story, in tune with the austere times.” Kurlantzick asks if that isn’t a “model for other monarchs?” Probably not, for as the palace and those responsible for the recent biography points out, this king is unlike any other…. and other such concoctions that serve “protect” and conceal.

One of many

Much that contributes to the wealth and power of the Thai monarchy remains missing from public view. See sets of PPT posts on this here and here.

As a most basic of examples, it remains unclear – make that opaque – how much taxpayer money goes to support the royal family, its activities, projects and personal spending. Efforts have been made to cull information from Budget Bureau papers, but there is no clarity and a myriad of government agencies pour funds into the support of the royals, with no accounting or public accountability (as one small example, think of royal cars). No minister or politician dares  raise questions about royal funding in parliament, which is meant to be one site of scrutiny over the expenditure of public monies; many of these people assist in what amount to cover ups. Senior bureaucrats regularly come out with dopey letters denying royal wealth.

Transparency remains pretty much off the agenda and accountability is a term that is unlikely to be used in the same breathe as monarchy.

Monarchies in perspective

We are sure that many readers will have noted the recent reports regarding then honorary president of the Spanish branch of the World Wildlife Fund, King Juan Carlos of Spain fell over and injured himself while on an elephant shoot in Botswana.

At Digital Journal it is stated that WWF is supposedly an international environmental organization that advocates, amongst other things, the protection of the African elephant. That their honorary president was blasting away at elephants on safari, got some attention, and the king quickly resigned his position.

The same report says that this hunting mishap is no surprise as the king “has been hunting all of his life, it is hardly a secret. In fact in 2006, it emerged the Royal had allegedly shot a domestic bear fed honey-laced vodka, to slow its reactions during a hunting trip in Russia.”

But there is much more to this story, with some remarkable links to Thailand, both in terms of similarities and differences. We thanks the regular reader who sent us in search of this material.

On the basic story, while there are now hundreds of articles available, the one at the Christian Science Monitor is a reasonable place to begin.

The story tells us that in “the first public apology by a Spanish monarch in history,” King Juan Carlos apologized for “taking a lavish hunting vacation amid sharp austerity cuts” at home. His apology amounted to 11 words.

Obviously, royals in many places live in the lap of luxury and ideas about austerity seem far removed from their lives, even if they do occasionally speak of the need for others to be more careful (as in Spain) or to make do (as in Thailand). They still enjoy their wealth, supplemented by public funds.

In the case of the safari for Juan Carlos, apparently he was being feted by a wealthy Saudi Arabian businessman. The pictures of the king posing with a dead elephant are everywhere (see below).

In Spain, there have been a series of recent scandals that are said to “have tested popular faith in the monarchy, seen as a unifier in post-Franco Spain.” That too sounds a bit like the “eye-opening” events seen in Thailand in recent years, from political meddling and coup plotting to lavish spending and locking people up for “insulting” the monarchy.

The royal apology only came after “several days of intense public pressure,” something unimaginable in Thailand because of the draconian lese majeste law.

At least Spain doesn’t regularly use such a draconian law to suppress commentary, even though it continues to exist there:

The uproar triggered extremely rare criticism that mushroomed quickly, from discreet comments by political leaders to popular chatter on Twitter and condemnation on talk shows. Several politicians openly called for his the king’s abdication – a demand not made in nearly a century, and one that is rocking the pillars of an already shaky establishment.

Not in Thailand…. Lese majeste does have a function in suppressing this kind of criticism.

Like the king in Thailand, “King Juan Carlos is much more than a figurehead monarch. He is credited with being a unifying presence in Spain and is, to most, a guarantor of Spanish national identity.” Very familiar royalist nonsense seen in most places where this political anachronism persists against the tide of history.

Royalists in Spain argue that the criticism has allowed the king to realize that he has made a “big mistake.” Such criticism is unimaginable in Thailand.

Juan Carlos is Spain’s first king since the monarchy was restored in 1978 after the death of Fascist dictator Franco, who had personally selected Juan Carlos for the job.  Spaniards abolished the monarchy in 1931, after voting in a republican government.

Juan Carlos is “credited with saving the country’s fledgling democracy in 1981, when he went on television and condemned an attempted military coup and privately demanded that those involved give up.” While the king in Thailand is often credited with being some kind of democrat, he has never criticized a coup, except when it seemed to be against his selected prime ministers, as in 1977 and 1981.

Even if Spaniards have usually been rather coy in criticizing the monarchy, ” the image of the monarchy has been consistently diminished for years. Spaniards gave the monarchy an unsatisfactory grade in the most recent poll, taken in October 2011…”. Again, that would be unthinkable in Thailand. And, that poll came prior to recent poor publicity.

Those scandals include:

the king’s grandson was injured lightly in his foot in a shooting accident, and his parents could be legally liable for allowing a child to use a firearm. There is also an ongoing trial against the king’s son-in-law, who is accused of embezzling millions of euros in public funds, a particularly egregious thing amid the country’s extreme economic hardship.

On the shooting of the prince earlier in April, the Daily Mail Online reported:

The 13-year-old grandson of Spain’s King Juan Carlos is recovering after accidentally shooting himself in the foot with a shotgun….Felipe Juan Froilan was doing target practice outside the family home north of Madrid, when he misfired into his foot as he walked…. Under Spanish law, it is illegal for children under 14 to possess or discharge firearms…. A palace official declined to comment on the infraction.

Most injuries to Thai royals are carefully kept secrets and even speculating on royal health has led to lese majeste investigations.

But then the report goes on to mention an earlier gun accident when the royal family was in exile in Portugal and that has haunted the Spanish royal family:

In March 1956, Juan Carlos was handling a gun that accidentally went off and killed his 14-year-old younger brother Alfonso…. The king, then 18, was reported to have been completely shocked and devastated and was said to have told family and friends that he ‘felt responsible.’

That event will rings bells for those with an interest in Thailand’s royal history. But first, some background from Wikipedia.

It tells us that on Maundy Thursday in March 1956 the brothers Alfonso and Juan Carlos were at their parents’ home when the former “died in a gun accident.” As Wikipedia explains, the Spanish Embassy in Portugal issued a communiqué, which sounds remarkably similar to the same kind of event at Bangkok’s Grand Palace a decade earlier:

Whilst His Highness the Infante Alfonso was cleaning a revolver last evening with his brother, a shot was fired hitting his forehead and killing him in a few minutes. The accident took place at 20.30 hours, after the Infante’s return from the Maundy Thursday religious service, during which he had received Holy Communion.

The Wikipedia account continues:

Very quickly, however, rumours appeared in newspapers that the gun had actually been held by Alfonso’s brother Juan Carlos at the moment the shot was fired. Josefina Carolo, dressmaker to Alfonso’s mother, said that Juan Carlos playfully pointed the pistol at Alfonso and pulled the trigger, unaware that the pistol was loaded. Bernardo Arnoso, a Portuguese friend of Juan Carlos, also said that Juan Carlos fired the pistol not knowing that it was loaded, and adding that the bullet ricocheted off a wall hitting Alfonso in the face. Helena Matheopoulos, a Greek author who spoke with Alfonso’s sister Pilar, said that Alfonso had been out of the room and when he returned and pushed the door open, the door knocked Juan Carlos in the arm causing him to fire the pistol.

Unlike, Thailand where royal secrecy and decades of cover up has led to speculation and rumor, Wikipedia states:

Most historians agree nowadays that the pistol was fired by Juan Carlos by accident. After the accident, the father, Don Juan de Borbón, sent Juan Carlos back to Spain immediately after the funeral and, because of pain and anger against Juan Carlos, did not talk to him for a while.

There have been various stories about the origins of the pistol. The most frequently repeated is that it was a gift to Alfonso from General Franco.

Such statements are, like so much else associated with a monarchy that thrives on a lack of transparency and scrutiny, unthinkable for Thailand. For Thailand, the most recent account of the shooting in 1946, which includes some interesting new documents, can be found at Zenjournalist (and our pics are mostly from that site).

The story of the tribulations of the Spanish monarchy, re-created by military Fascists and claimed to be democratic and enjoying the fruits of monarchy, seems to fit Thailand’s circumstances  in ways that are  uncanny.