The 1932 Revolution is regarded as the beginning of modern Thailand as it has influenced the Thai society greatly. This revolution has brought to Thailand the sense of nationalism and democracy. The new government was able to cancel some of the extraterritorial rights enjoyed by the foreigners through unequal treaties.⑥ It also brought about the ideology of democracy for the first time. Pridi, one of the promoters, founded the pro-democratic Thammasat University⑦ which played an important role in the democratic movement in the 1980s and 1990s. This is similar to the Chinese 1911 Revolution. Dr Sun, the leader of the 1911 Revolution, also succeeded in introducing democracy into China. Both of the events started the reforms towards democracy of their countries although they did not achieve the immediate effects. On the other hand the role of military was also established in the revolution. Without the military the coup would never happen. ⑧From that time to present the Thai politics have been heavily influenced by the military. One example can be the 2006 coup which ousted the elected government of Mr. Thaksin. The 1932 Revolution has a long lasting legacy in the Thai society and thus qualifies as an example of revolution.
The 1932 Revolution was also a drastic event. It started with the seizure of the Throne Hall and ended with the agreement with the King. The revolution started in the morning of 24th of June 1932 with the takeover of the First Cavalry Regiment of the Royal Guards and by the evening the revolutionaries had already controlled the situation. On 27th of June, the first constitution of Siam came out. It was like the Russian October Revolution which also spanned only a couple of days. ⑨The drastic change of power in the 1932 Revolution makes it a revolution as the sudden change of power is one of the principles of revolutions.
However there is some evidence indicates this event in 1932 not a revolution. One is the absence of mass participation. The People’s Party, unlike Bolsheviks in Russia which had a sophisticated organization, had only 102 members when the revolution broke out.⑩ They also decided not to organize a mass revolt but a military coup as they realized that the Siamese people were not ready for democracy and had no interest in affairs in Bangkok. In Bangkok, the revolution elicits almost no response from the populace, the day-to-day life of the populace returned to normal even before the end of the day. The rest of the country was also similarly disaffected prompting the Times in London to report that the revolution merely was “a simple re-adjustment”. ⑾The absence of mass participation makes the event in 1932 not like a revolution as a revolution normally comprises a mass participation.
There was also no violence during the revolution. The revolutionary troops did not encounter any resistance of any armed forces. The Princes were forced by the Promoters to sign a document proclaiming their commitment to peace and to avoid any bloodshed after they were captured. The only casualty was the Commander of the First Army Corps who suffered minor injury when fought with the revolutionary troops.⑿ The coup thus differs from a revolution as it does not involve violence.
Jack Goldstone describes revolutions as an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and noninstitutionalized actions that undermine authorities.⒀ Under this concept the 1932 coup d’état may not be recognized as a revolution as it lacks mass mobilization. It is also different from the conventional concept that revolutions should be violent. In contrary, the 1932 event was bloodless and peaceful. However, I think that the word 'revolution' is employed to denote a change in socio-political institutions basically⒁, unlike a coup where a military faction deposes the civil government and assumes power without changing the political or social structure of the country. The Thai Revolution, however, does change Thailand from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy. It also has a heavy influence in today’s Thai society as it brought about the ideology of democracy. It also happened as sudden as other revolutions. As I think that the most important principle of revolution should be the change of political and social structure of one country, I agree that the 1932 Thai Revolution is a real example of revolution.
Bibliography
①:Baker, Christopher; Phongpaichit, Pasuk (2005). A History of Thailand. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
②:Stowe, Judith (1991). Siam Becomes Thailand: A Story of Intrigue. United Kingdom: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers.
③: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Thailand_(1768%E2%80%931932)
④: Paul M. Handley, "The King Never Smiles" Yale University Press
⑤: Bangkok Times Weekly Magazine (August 22, 1934).
⑥: The Nation, "When Pridi's diplomatic skills shaped the nation's fate", 14 May 2000
⑦:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thammasat_University
⑧: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siamese_Revolution_of_1932#cite_note-Page_twentysix-30
⑨: A Concise History of the Russian Revolution by Richard Pipes
⑩: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siamese_Revolution_of_1932#cite_note-Page_twentysix-30
⑾:Stowe, Judith (1991). Siam Becomes Thailand: A Story of Intrigue. United Kingdom: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers.
⑿:Baker, Christopher; Phongpaichit, Pasuk (2005). A History of Thailand. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
⒀:Jack Goldstone, "Towards a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory”
⒁: Jack Goldstone, "Theories of Revolutions: The Third Generation