Citizens' manuals
The continuing struggle for an adequate symbolic rendering of the new regime's legitimacy, despite the uncertain outcome of the revolution, is the context in which one should consider the issuing of the Manual for Citizens by the Department of the Interior in 1936. This publication aimed at providing people with an understanding of the new regime and its claim to political legitimacy A brief exposition of two versions of the manual follows. One was issued in 1936 at a time when the royalist threat remained, although diminished The second, a revised manual, issued in 1948, appeared when the royalis influence was again being felt both in public discourse and in political circles. Thousands were distributed to the provinces for the edification of officials and literate local notables. As official publications, they present the state orthodoxy of the time. In the first manual, Siam is said to no longer be an absolute monarchy but a system of democracy, which is described as a "government of the citizens and by the citizens [phonlameuang] so rawing on, but reworking, the familial metaphor of the nation propagated by Vajiravudh, the nation is described as "one big family'.81 Readers are told that the security of the nation is in the minds of each person. In a revised edition, published a year later, a rationale for the manual is given: In every country that has government in accordance with constitutional democracy the people have a duty to study and know their rights and duties so as to be able to act as a good citizens. 82 The manual, the reader is informed, was therefore published to assist citi zens to be "persons who love the nation, religion, king and constitution' 83
In matters of the above, the 1936 and 1948 editions are very similar. However, a significant shift in tone appears in a parallel discussion on the difference between the idea of a country a sovereign territory ruled by a state, and a nation (chat a grouping of people of common origins.84 the first manual the origin of the state (rattha) is described as being based on the need for a sovereign power when people gather together. In such gather ings it is the duty of a country to protect the rights and freedoms of the people and to improve the welfare and status of the people In the 1948 manual readers are now informed, under the same heading o "Country, that there must be governed and governors' and that the governors must have the capacity to compel the governed to follow dictates which correspond to both tradition and law.s6 To control a nation of thousands of families, there is a need for power that is 'sacred', which can protect those with little power from those who would harm the people. Such power is sovereign, and with it a government can look after the people's livelihood (dulae thuksuk). In both manuals, the status of a citizen is contrasted with that of a slave. While a slave's life was in the hands of the master, a citizen has full rights itth) and duties (nathi. Slavery, the reader is informed, went against the inherent love of freedom, and was thus unnatural ss Rights are defined as having access to political and legal equality and freedom. However, rights are limited as not to infringe on another's rights.s9 Freedom is to be constrained by law, for freedom means being "able to do anything without infringing the law of the land'.90 Rights include having freedom of movement and expression, to take up any occupation or legal residence, or to set up an association These are all part and parcel of a generalized presentation of democracy as a system safeguarding individuals
In terms of a citizen's duties, the 1948 manual reflects the growing admin istrative control sought by the bureaucracy over the population. In addition to the duties outlined in the 1936 manual (patriotism and defending the country, the payment of taxes, voting, respecting the law, and seeking an 92 citizens were now expected to report deat education and worki births and marriages, report building activities and participate in various duties that tied the citizen to the state; citizenship thus became a matter of selfreportage to the distant state.93 The discussions on democracy and sovereignty are quite similar in both manuals. While sovereignty is seen as coming from the people, the people are to use their sovereign power indirectly, voting to elect representatives who will control the three branches of government, which, in liberal fashion, are to be kept separate so as to act as a check on each other 94 While democracy is described as the best form of government in the 1936 manual, a cautious note is struck, because "it can be disastrous when the people do not know how to use their rights' 95 Therefore the manual called for the training of 96 citizens. Evident in both texts is a particular concern to emphasize that democracy does not mean equality in economic terms, but only in political and legal
terms; after all, "[ijn every milieu there must be seniors (phuya) and juniors noi, commanders and commanded'.97 The manuals are useful in capturing the popular presentation of democ- racy by the state to the people a formal presentation of quite liberal forms of democracy. As yet, the highlighting of the monarchy and Buddhism as the basis for democracy is not present, neither is there any extended repre- on that seeks a moral constitution of citizen in terms of the Thainess'. However, in noting the absence of capable citizens the embryonic theme of citizen know-how is clearly present. In short, these early contain "thin' ideological notions of citizenship, a series of citizen depictions as a form of oratory appeal. As members of the nation-state, citizens had a duty to participate, through voting, in the administration of the count this was what was meant by democracy. The thick elaboration of contempo discourse where citizenship would be deeply entwined with rary mythologized history and culture was awaiting official representation Democra subjection, as the dual movement of hegemony and government, remained, as yet, an undeveloped project at this early stage The texts discussed are official representations of the new form of political legitimacy. Outside of official circles, intellectuals also took part in naming the new system, defining its elements and its connections with the Thai past and the modern future. Separate Thai-language studies of these intellectual currents by Nakharin Mektraiarit and riangsa. Chetphathanuan suggest a period of significant articulation of conservative and liberal renderings of democracy. These studies present a detailed picture of monarchical entrenchment into the discourse of democracy. Royalism was initially submerged and struggled for space under the post-revolu tionary fervour of the period, but gradually emerged into the mainstream in the post-war period, becoming officially promoted under Sarit. A significant theme in both studies is the permanent state of debate surrounding democracy among elites. The broad significance of both studies is to highlight the attempt by traditionalists to relegitimize the monarchy by rethinking and propagating select aspects of traditional Thai kingship. Such relegitimization included appeals to the notions of the father king' (pho khun) as upholding Buddhism in the Sukhothai period (thammaracha) seen as the dominant principle of kingship before its supposed corruption into divine kingship (thewada) under the Brahmanical influence of Khmer thought in the Ayutthaya period. Furthermore, the traditionalists suggested that the king governed with the people's consent as long as he ruled according to Buddhist precepts (aneknikonsomosansamuti). These ideas had reemerged during the reign of Chulalongkorn, and would be used by the royalists in the aftermath of the revolution to argue that the ancient form of Siamese government was already democratic 99 Nakharin demonstrates how this idea of kingship was drawn on by Sarit to eschew the formal election of political leadership; instead Sarit rooted political legitimacy in notions of patriarchal