Monarchy and Political Change: A Comparative Study of Thailand and Japan

Abstract

This research aimed to: (1) examine the role and adaptation of the monarchy amid political changes in Thailand; (2) examine the role and adaptation of the imperial institution amid political changes in Japan; and (3) compare the similarities and differences in the roles and adaptation of the monarchical institutions in response to political changes in the two countries. This study employed a qualitative research approach using documentary research, historical analysis, and comparative analysis. Data were collected from constitutions, laws, books, research articles, and academic publications in Thai and English. Content analysis and cross-case analysis were conducted across four dimensions: changes in the foundations of sovereignty, the constitutional status and powers of the monarch, institutional adaptation to political change, and symbolic roles and legitimacy. The findings revealed that both Thailand and Japan have maintained the continuity of their monarchical institutions despite major transformations in their political structures, although their patterns of adaptation differ. In Thailand, the 1932 political transformation marked a crucial turning point, after which the monarchy adapted its status and roles within a constitutional framework amid continuing changes in political regimes and structures. In Japan, the major turning point occurred after the Second World War, when the 1947 Constitution established the Emperor as the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people while clearly restricting the Emperor's role in government. The comparative findings indicate that Japan's institutional adaptation has primarily occurred through clearly defined constitutional boundaries and the strengthening of the Emperor's symbolic role, whereas Thailand's adaptation has developed through the evolving constitutional status and roles of the monarchy within changing political contexts. The study concludes that the continuity of monarchical institutions does not necessarily depend on preserving their previous forms. Rather, it is associated with their capacity to adapt their status, roles, and bases of legitimacy to the changing political order of each country.