泰式民主的核心：父權專制主義的塑造與實踐

The Essence of Thai-Style Democracy: The Formation and Practice of Despotic Paternalism

陳虹宇(CHEN Hung-Yu)

泰式民主 ； 父權式專制主義 ； 君主網絡 ； 恩庇主義 ； Thai-Style in Democracy ； Despotic Paternalism ； Network Monarchy ； Clientelism

台灣東南亞學刊

18卷2期（2023 / 10 / 01）

95 - 122

繁體中文;英文

政治系統內含有政治制度、政治角色、政治行為及政治文化等四個要素，每一構成要素的發展與變化，影響整個民主系統的運行與穩定。泰國自1932年革命後推翻君主專制，施行君主立憲制以來，民主制度受到威權政府的控制，成為鞏固政權的工具。歷經長期軍事威權統治下，在炳．廷素拉暖（Prem Tinsulanonda, 1980-88）執政期間把「父權專制主義」（Despotic Paternalism）的傳統政治文化，結合恩庇主義（Clientelism）的政治行為，建構由「王室／軍方／官僚政體」組成「君主網絡」（Network Monarchy）的半民主體制（Semi-Democratic），形成「泰式民主」（Thai-Style in Democracy）。Thak Chaloemtiarana認為「父權專制主義」為1960年代沙立（Sarit）獨裁政權的本質，在1980年代成為半民主體制的核心；准此，本研究認為：「泰式民主」是將傳統階級與服從權威的文化，結合國王傳統權威形成「父權專制主義」，並內嵌於泰國政治領導階層成為核心原則，具體展現在以軍方為主導與指導式民主發展的政治模式。換言之，國王在「泰式民主」政治系統中，扮演最後仲裁者；軍隊扮演監督、控制政權的改變者；官僚組織為施政的執行者。憲法、政黨、選舉等各項代表民主政治運作的象徵與方式，都必須在「君主網絡」內方可進行，而泰式民主進一步發展關鍵，則取決於軍方菁英階層。

The political system consists of four elements: political system, political role, political behavior and political culture. The development and change of each element affects the operation and stability of the entire democratic system. Since the overthrow of the monarchy and the implementation of the constitutional system in Thailand after the 1932 revolution, the democratic system has been under the control of the authoritarian government and has become a tool for consolidating the regime. After a long period of authoritarian military rule during the reign of Prem Tinsulanonda (1980-88), the traditional political culture of Despotic Paternalism was combined with the political behavior of clientelism to construct a Semi-democratic system consisting of a Network Monarchy of the royal/military/bureaucratic regime. Thak Chaloemtiarana argues that "Despotic Paternalism" was the essence of the Sarit dictatorship in the 1960s and became the core of the semi-democratic system in the 1980s. In this regard, this study argues that "Thai-style democracy" is a political model that combines the traditional authority of the king with the traditional authority of the king to form "patriarchal authoritarianism" and is embedded in the Thai political leadership as a core principle, which is manifested in the development of a military-led and guided democracy. In other words, the King plays the role of final arbiter in the "Thai democracy" political system; the military plays the role of supervising and controlling the change of power; and the bureaucratic organizations are the executors of governance. The constitution, political parties, elections, and other symbols and methods of democratic politics must be carried out within the "monarchical network," and the key to the further development of Thai-style democracy depends on the military elite.

1. 陳佩修(2009)。泰國的軍事政變與政治變遷。東吳政治學報，27(3)，65-116。
   連結：
2. 陳佩修(2009)。泰式民主的脆弱性–2006 年 919 軍事政變與泰國民主的逆轉。臺灣民主季刊，6(1)，73-106。
   連結：
3. Baker, C.(2016).The 2014 Thai Coup and Some Roots of Authoritarianism.Journal of Contemporary Asia,46(3),388-404.
4. Blake, D. J.(2015).King Bhumibol: The Symbolic “Father of Water Resources Management” and Hydraulic Development Discourse in Thailand.Asian Studies Review,39(4),649-668.
5. Chaloemtiarana, T.(2007).Thailand: The Politics of Despotic Paternalism.Southeast Asia Program Publications.
6. Chambers, P.,Waitoolkiat, N.(2016).The Resilience of Monarchised Military in Thailand.Journal of Contemporary Asia,46(3),425-444.
7. Connors, M. K.(2008).Article of Faith: The Failure of Royal Liberalism in Thailand.Journal of Contemporary Asia,38(1),143-165.
8. Connors, M. K.(2011).When the Walls Come Crumbling Down: The Monarchy and Thai Style Democracy.Journal of Contemporary Asia,41(4),657-673.
9. Connors, M. K.,Hewison, K.(2008).Introduction: Thailand and the “Good Coup”.Journal of Contemporary Asia,38(1),1-10.
10. Demaine, H.(1998).The Thai Economy: Uneven Development and Internationalisation.New York:Routledge.
11. Diamon, L.(2008).The Spirit of Democracy.New York:Times Book.
12. Farrelly, N.(2013).Why Democracy Struggles: Thailand's Elite Coup Culture.Australian Journal of International Affairs,67(3),281-296.
13. Fineman, Daniel(1997).A Special Relationship: the United States and Military Government in Thailand, 1947-1958.University of Hawaii Press.
14. Girling, J.(1984).II. Hegemony and Domination in Third World Countries: A Case Study of Thailand.Alternatives,10(3),435-452.
15. Haberkorn, T.(2021).Under and beyond the Law: Monarchy, Violence, and History in Thailand.Politics & Society,49(3),311-336.
16. Hebditch, D.,Connor, K.(2009).How to Stage a Military Coup: from Planning to Execution.Skyhorse Publishing Inc.
17. Helbardt, S.,Korff, R.,Hellmann-Rajanyagam, D.(2008).Authoritarian Orientations in Thailand.New Mandala.
18. Hewison, K.(2007).Constitutions, Regimes and Power in Thailand.Democratization,14(5),928-945.
19. Hewison, K.(2014).Thailand: The Lessons of Protest.Asian Studies: Journal of Critical Perspectives on Asia,50(1)
20. Hewison, K.(2010).Thaksin Shinawatra and the Reshaping of Thai Politics.Contemporary Politics,16(2),119-133.
21. Hewison, K.,Kitirianglarp, K.(2010).Saying the Unsayable: Monarchy and Democracy in Thailand.NIAS Press.
22. Hicken, A.(2006).Party Fabrication: Constitutional Reform and the Rise of Thai Rak Thai.Journal of East Asian Studies,6(3),381-407.
23. Huntington, Samuel P.,劉軍寧（譯）(1991).第三波：20 世紀後期民主化浪潮.臺北:五南出版社.
24. Hutchcroft, P. D.(2014).Linking Capital and Countryside: Patronage and Clientelism in Japan, Thailand, and the Philippines.Clientelism, Social Policy, and the Quality of Democracy
25. Kesboonchoo, K.(1995).Thai Democratization: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives.South East Asia Research,3(2),205-218.
26. Khan, M. H.(1998).Patron-Client Networks and the Economic Effects of Corruption in Asia.The European Journal of Development Research,10,15-39.
27. Kulick, E.,Wilson, D.(1996).Time for Thailand: Profile of a New Success.White Lotus.
28. Lemarchand, R.,Legg, K.(1972).Political Clientelism and Development: A Preliminary Analysis.Comparative Politics,4(2),149-178.
29. London, J. D.(2018).Welfare and Inequality in Marketizing East Asia.
30. McCargo, D.(2005).Network Monarchy and Legitimacy Crises in Thailand.The Pacific Review,18(4),499-519.
31. McCargo, D.(2006).Thaksin and the Resurgence of Violence in the Thai South: Network Monarchy Strikes Back?.Critical Asian Studies,38(1),39-71.
32. Mérieau, E.(2016).Thailand’s Deep State, Royal Power and the Constitutional Court (1997-2015).Journal of Contemporary Asia,46(3),445-466.
33. Neher, C. D.(1994).Asian Style Democracy.Asian Survey,34(11),949-961.
34. Numnonda, Thamsook(1978).Pibulsongkram’s Thai Nation-Building Programme during the Japanese Military Presence, 1941-1945.Journal of Southeast Asian Studies,9(2),234-247.
35. Ockey, J.(2005).Monarch, Monarchy, Succession and Stability in Thailand.Asia Pacific Viewpoint,46(2),115-127.
36. Paddock, Richard C. and Lindner, Emmett。2020/10/28。〈有關泰國大規模抗議，你應該知道的四個問題〉。《紐約時報中文網》。https://cn.nytimes.com/asia-pacific/20201028/thailand-protests-explainer/zh-hant/。（檢索日期：2021/3）
37. Phongpaichit, P.(2016).Inequality, Wealth and Thailand’s Politics.Journal of Contemporary Asia,46(3),405-424.
38. Scott, J. C.(1972).The Erosion of Patron-Client Bonds and Social Change in Rural Southeast Asia.The Journal of Asian Studies,32(1),5-37.
39. Scott, J. C.(1972).Patron-Client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia.American Political Science Review,66(1),91-113.
40. Scupin, Raymond(1986).Thailand as a Plural Society: Ethnic Interaction in a Buddhist Kingdom.Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies,2(3),115-140.
41. Songsamphan, C.(1995).Thailand: Slow Government, Sluggish Democratization.Southeast Asian Affairs,327-342.
42. Stein, H. F.(1984).A Note on Patron-Client Theory.Ethos,12(1),30-36.
43. Streckfuss, D.(2013).The Future of the Monarchy in Thailand.Kyoto Review,13
44. Tejapira, K.(2016).The Irony of Democratization and the Decline of Royal Hegemony in Thailand.Southeast Asian Studies,5(2),219-237.
45. Tilly, C.(2001).Mechanisms in Political Processes.Annual Review of Political Science,4(1),21-41.
46. Ünaldi, S.(2016).A Kingdom in Crisis-What’s All the Fuss About?.Journal of Contemporary Asia,46(1),120-129.
47. Westwood, R.(1997).Harmony and Patriarchy: The Cultural Basis for ‘Paternalistic Headship’ Among the Overseas Chinese.Organization Studies,18(3),445-480.
48. Winichakul, T.(2017).Thailand’s Hyper-Royalism: Its Past Success and Present Predicament.Trends in Southeast Asia,7
49. Winichakul, T.(2008).Toppling Democracy.Journal of Contemporary Asia,38(1),11-37.
50. Winichakul, T.(2001).Prawatisat thai baep rachachatniyom: Chak yuk ananikhonm amphrang su rachachatniyom mai ru latthi sadet phor khorn kradumphi thai nai patchuban.Silapawathanatham,23(1),56-64.
51. 王子昌(2007)。人民制憲權的行使與政局的穩定:對泰圍政變頻發的法學思考。暨南學報（哲學社會科學版），2007(3)
52. 田禾,周方治(2009).泰國.北京:社會科學文獻出版社.
53. 任一雄(2002).東亞模式中的威權政治：泰國個案研究.北京:北京大學出版社.
54. 吳聖楊(2010)。泰國恩庇制禮教文化背景與《四朝代》主題剖析。外國文學評論，2010(3)，42。
55. 吳輝(2005).政黨制度與政治穩定—東南亞經驗的研究.北京:世界知識出版社.
56. 杜潔、薄文澤。2013。〈泰國家族制度演變及其啟示—基於恩庇關係分析〉。《人民論壇》。
57. 周方冶(2003)。泰國民主政治：現狀與問題。當代亞太，2003(6)，37-43。
58. 周世亮(2008)。泰國政局中的政治三角：軍隊、技術官僚、公眾社會。學術探索，2008(3)，36-40。
59. 張錫鎮(1992)。泰國軍事政變頻繁的原因及其發展趨勢。東南亞縱橫，1992(2)，49-54。
60. 張錫鎮(2009)。泰國民主政治的怪圖。東南亞研究，2009(3)，4-10。
61. 萬悅容(2011)。他信執政前泰國非政府組織的發展特點。人民論壇：中旬刊，2011(12)，58-59。
62. 劉勇智,張學藝(2008)。泰國民主政治的發展道路及其成因。國際論壇，2008(5)，68-72。
63. 譚融,馮立洋(2016)。論泰國的“政黨跳槽”。天津師範大學學報（社會科學版），2016(1)
64. 顧長永(2010).泰國：拉瑪九世皇六十年.臺北:巨流圖書公司.