It is a mistake to imagine that the monarchy disappeared as an ideological force until its rehabilitation in the late 1950s. Since 1932 the institution of the monarchy remained in use as an aspect of political legitimacy and as a focus for aristrocrats to maintain and advance their position. Struggles continued even after the abdication of King Prachatipok in 1935 Conservatives continued to seek an extension of the constitutional role of the monarchy through to the late 1940s 66 Even during the height of the ultranationalism of the Phibun regime the monarchy still counted. Phibun, in a 1940 address opening the Democracy Monument, noted the importance of the monarchy as an inviolable institution so that it could "be a factor letting all people unite harmoniously as one 67 He went on, however, to say that if the king failed in his duties it could lead to the collapse of the nation and lead even to hatred of the king himself.6s Although the late 1940s signalled the dominance of the military in deter- mining who held power, parliamentary forms of government, along with elections, were basically retained until the late 1950s despite brief suspen sions. Nevertheless, the 1950s was characterized by a series of coups corruption and parliamentary impotence. Political parties, as cliques of