Thai Protests to Reform Monarchy

[Shofercia]

What about Putin?

Learned Helplessness.

There's this trend in the population of former authoritarian countries that, even in a democracy, that the opinion or wants of the populace don't matter so you should just sit down and take whatever happens to you. This explains why countries like Belarus, Hungary, Turkey, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, etc... have been able to fall into dictatorships so quickly, because the populace isn't willing to do anything or doesn't realize they can do anything until it's too late for that change to actually happen.

Russians just taking it... erm, yeah that ain't happening. I can't speak for Hungary, Turkey, Uzbekistan, or Turkmenistan, but in Russia Yeltsin was couped. The military simply refused to follow his orders after his mishandling of the 1998 economic crash, which was the final straw. Belarus made a very smooth transition from the Cold War World to today's World, as can be evident by quite a few of Belarus' economic and demographic indicators. Ditto for Kazakhstan.

Putin lowered corruption, then again, a child could've lowered Yetlsin's corruption, but, as the image above shows Putin did plenty of good things for Russia.

No, he just replaced Yeltsin's corruption with his own corruption.

Yeah, and the US itself was poorer back in the 90's too. Just because a country's doing better economically doesn't means it's doing better socially or politically.

Then why was Yeltsin's approval rating in the tank, in the single digits, whereas Putin's never fell below 55%? Why were there numerous strikes against Yeltsin, but few strikes against Putin? People in the post-Soviet countries will let the leader get away with certain civil rights abuses, as long as the Standard of Living is improving, and there's some form of International Glory, and no, it doesn't have to be military glory - for Kazakhstan it was successfully hosting the Asian Games.

I'm not going to pretend that Putin isn't corrupt, or that he doesn't abuse civil rights, but compared to Yeltsin's corruption, Putin's corruption simply pales in comparison. Throughout Russia's History, the leaders that had good approval ratings were those who improved the Standard of Living. Khrushchev was a repressive mofo, but he ensured that nearly everyone had housing. Brezhnev repressed civil liberties, but also ensured seamless travel between home and work, and ensured that nearly everyone worked. And so on.

During Putin's leadership, the Standard of Living increased dramatically. In Russia, under Putin, the PPP of the GDP per capita - doubled. In the US, during the same time period, it increased by roughly 25%-30%. That's a huge difference.

[New haven america]

Learned Helplessness.

There's this trend in the population of former authoritarian countries that, even in a democracy, that the opinion or wants of the populace don't matter so you should just sit down and take whatever happens to you. This explains why countries like Belarus, Hungary, Turkey, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, etc... have been able to fall into dictatorships so quickly, because the populace isn't willing to do anything or doesn't realize they can do anything until it's too late for that change to actually happen.

1. Russians just taking it... erm, yeah that ain't happening. I can't speak for Hungary, Turkey, Uzbekistan, or Turkmenistan, but in Russia Yeltsin was couped. The military simply refused to follow his orders after his mishandling of the 1998 economic crash, which was the final straw. 2. Belarus made a very smooth transition from the Cold War World to today's World, as can be evident by quite a few of Belarus' economic and demographic indicators. Ditto for Kazakhstan.

No, he just replaced Yeltsin's corruption with his own corruption.

Yeah, and the US itself was poorer back in the 90's too. Just because a country's doing better economically doesn't means it's doing better socially or politically.

3. Then why was Yeltsin's approval rating in the tank, in the single digits, whereas Putin's never fell below 55%? Why were there numerous strikes against Yeltsin, but few strikes against Putin? 4. People in the post-Soviet countries will let the leader get away with certain civil rights abuses, as long as the Standard of Living is improving, and there's some form of International Glory, and no, it doesn't have to be military glory - for Kazakhstan it was successfully hosting the Asian Games.

5. I'm not going to pretend that Putin isn't corrupt, or that he doesn't abuse civil rights, but compared to Yeltsin's corruption, Putin's corruption simply pales in comparison. Throughout Russia's History, the leaders that had good approval ratings were those who improved the Standard of Living. Khrushchev was a repressive mofo, but he ensured that nearly everyone had housing. Brezhnev repressed civil liberties, but also ensured seamless travel between home and work, and ensured that nearly everyone worked. And so on.

6. During Putin's leadership, the Standard of Living increased dramatically. In Russia, under Putin, the PPP of the GDP per capita - doubled. In the US, during the same time period, it increased by roughly 25%-30%. That's a huge difference.

1. Yeah, no, that's 100% just happening. In fact, 1/2 of the former Soviet states are dealing with a population that's rife with learned helplessness. You can tell which ones they are cause they're the ones that are dictatorships.
2. All of which became dictatorial states before it was too late to do anything, as I already said.
3. Why is Reagan celebrated as a national hero despite the fact that he did nothing but set in motion the economic system that would kill the middle class, took credit for the economic boom of the 80's despite having nothing to do with it (Computers were the cause), and turned the Republican Party Authoritarian?

Just because someone does something wrong or stupid doesn't magically make the incorrect behaviors of those they get replaced by disappear.

4. No, they'll do it because of learned helplessness. Former USSR states like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, etc... don't have that issue and are much freer, economically successful, and socially safe than those that are dealing with learned helplessness.
5. Yeah, sure, you'll just downplay it as much as possible and run into any thread where his name is mentioned to sing his praises.
6. Russia used to be the #1 economy in the entire world. Going by the standard you've presented thus far, I'd argue Putin's doing an even shittier job than I originally believed. After all, Russia used to be #1 but now it's only #6 if we're being generous.

That Shof is a faulty argument, you should know this because you've been using it quite a bit.

[Punished UMN]

The King needs to abdicate in favor of a less divisive and corrupt figure, though idk if the monarchy as an institution will recover from the cracks he's put in its foundation.

[The New California Republic]

First thing they can do is take lèse majesté along with its aggressive enforcement off the statute books.

[Punished UMN]

1. Russians just taking it... erm, yeah that ain't happening. I can't speak for Hungary, Turkey, Uzbekistan, or Turkmenistan, but in Russia Yeltsin was couped. The military simply refused to follow his orders after his mishandling of the 1998 economic crash, which was the final straw. 2. Belarus made a very smooth transition from the Cold War World to today's World, as can be evident by quite a few of Belarus' economic and demographic indicators. Ditto for Kazakhstan.




3. Then why was Yeltsin's approval rating in the tank, in the single digits, whereas Putin's never fell below 55%? Why were there numerous strikes against Yeltsin, but few strikes against Putin? 4. People in the post-Soviet countries will let the leader get away with certain civil rights abuses, as long as the Standard of Living is improving, and there's some form of International Glory, and no, it doesn't have to be military glory - for Kazakhstan it was successfully hosting the Asian Games.

5. I'm not going to pretend that Putin isn't corrupt, or that he doesn't abuse civil rights, but compared to Yeltsin's corruption, Putin's corruption simply pales in comparison. Throughout Russia's History, the leaders that had good approval ratings were those who improved the Standard of Living. Khrushchev was a repressive mofo, but he ensured that nearly everyone had housing. Brezhnev repressed civil liberties, but also ensured seamless travel between home and work, and ensured that nearly everyone worked. And so on.

6. During Putin's leadership, the Standard of Living increased dramatically. In Russia, under Putin, the PPP of the GDP per capita - doubled. In the US, during the same time period, it increased by roughly 25%-30%. That's a huge difference.

1. Yeah, no, that's 100% just happening. In fact, 1/2 of the former Soviet states are dealing with a population that's rife with learned helplessness. You can tell which ones they are cause they're the ones that are dictatorships.
2. All of which became dictatorial states before it was too late to do anything, as I already said.
3. Why is Reagan celebrated as a national hero despite the fact that he did nothing but set in motion the economic system that would kill the middle class, took credit for the economic boom of the 80's despite having nothing to do with it (Computers were the cause), and turned the Republican Party Authoritarian?

Just because someone does something wrong or stupid doesn't magically make the incorrect behaviors of those they get replaced by disappear.

4. No, they'll do it because of learned helplessness. Former USSR states like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, etc... don't have that issue and are much freer, economically successful, and socially safe than those that are dealing with learned helplessness.
5. Yeah, sure, you'll just downplay it as much as possible and run into any thread where his name is mentioned to sing his praises.
6. Russia used to be the #1 economy in the entire world. Going by the standard you've presented thus far, I'd argue Putin's doing an even shittier job than I originally believed. After all, Russia used to be #1 but now it's only #6 if we're being generous.

That Shof is a faulty argument, you should know this because you've been using it quite a bit.

4) Kyrgyzstan is one of the poorest post-Soviet states and is not at all more free than Belarus, Russia, or certainly Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan. The Baltic States received the benefits of joining the EU and obtaining the resulting free trade, which makes it an outlier. However, comparing economic performance of Belarus and Turkmenistan to the Baltic states as a proportion of their initial gdp per capita in 1991 would show that Belarus and Turkmenistan were actually more successful than any Baltic state economically.

[Shofercia]

1. Russians just taking it... erm, yeah that ain't happening. I can't speak for Hungary, Turkey, Uzbekistan, or Turkmenistan, but in Russia Yeltsin was couped. The military simply refused to follow his orders after his mishandling of the 1998 economic crash, which was the final straw. 2. Belarus made a very smooth transition from the Cold War World to today's World, as can be evident by quite a few of Belarus' economic and demographic indicators. Ditto for Kazakhstan.




3. Then why was Yeltsin's approval rating in the tank, in the single digits, whereas Putin's never fell below 55%? Why were there numerous strikes against Yeltsin, but few strikes against Putin? 4. People in the post-Soviet countries will let the leader get away with certain civil rights abuses, as long as the Standard of Living is improving, and there's some form of International Glory, and no, it doesn't have to be military glory - for Kazakhstan it was successfully hosting the Asian Games.

5. I'm not going to pretend that Putin isn't corrupt, or that he doesn't abuse civil rights, but compared to Yeltsin's corruption, Putin's corruption simply pales in comparison. Throughout Russia's History, the leaders that had good approval ratings were those who improved the Standard of Living. Khrushchev was a repressive mofo, but he ensured that nearly everyone had housing. Brezhnev repressed civil liberties, but also ensured seamless travel between home and work, and ensured that nearly everyone worked. And so on.

6. During Putin's leadership, the Standard of Living increased dramatically. In Russia, under Putin, the PPP of the GDP per capita - doubled. In the US, during the same time period, it increased by roughly 25%-30%. That's a huge difference.

1. Yeah, no, that's 100% just happening. In fact, 1/2 of the former Soviet states are dealing with a population that's rife with learned helplessness. You can tell which ones they are cause they're the ones that are dictatorships.
2. All of which became dictatorial states before it was too late to do anything, as I already said.
3. Why is Reagan celebrated as a national hero despite the fact that he did nothing but set in motion the economic system that would kill the middle class, took credit for the economic boom of the 80's despite having nothing to do with it (Computers were the cause), and turned the Republican Party Authoritarian?

Just because someone does something wrong or stupid doesn't magically make the incorrect behaviors of those they get replaced by disappear.

4. No, they'll do it because of learned helplessness. Former USSR states like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, etc... don't have that issue and are much freer, economically successful, and socially safe than those that are dealing with learned helplessness.
5. Yeah, sure, you'll just downplay it as much as possible and run into any thread where his name is mentioned to sing his praises.
6. Russia used to be the #1 economy in the entire world. Going by the standard you've presented thus far, I'd argue Putin's doing an even shittier job than I originally believed. After all, Russia used to be #1 but now it's only #6 if we're being generous.

That Shof is a faulty argument, you should know this because you've been using it quite a bit.

1. Ah yes, the theory of learned helplessness, which totally explains Russia's Revolution of 1917, which followed the 1905 Revolt. Like it totez does, all you have to do is ignore the facts, and the explanation will like totez work, pwomise!

Both were spawned by lack of proper infrastructure, military defeats, and repressive regimes, but hey, aren't people who were ruled by the House of Romanov since 1613 not supposed to revolt, ya know, learned helplessness and all? They've been learning since 1613! Joking and sarcasm aside, the theory was initially tested on dogs, and talks about individual behavior, rather than societal behavior. Furthermore, if the Russians have this "Learned Helplessness" why remove the unpopular Governor of Kaliningrad out of office? Why remove former defense minister Serdyokov, or Moscow's Mayor - Luzhkov? Why protest against the corrupt Yeltsin administration?

Furthermore, claiming that only half of the post-Soviet countries have Learned Helplessness is racist, since all of them were under the Russian Empire, had brief independence, and fell under the USSR. But only half have Learned Helplessness? Who theorized that one, Professor Bullshitter McCrap?

2. I don't view a state that has democratic presidential elections, where the president gets roughly his approval rating as a vote tally, as dictatorial. Furthermore, there were protests in Russia after a disputed Parliamentary Election, and, most recently, protests in Belarus after an allegedly rigged election. Remind me the last time that happened in Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe...

3. While you're welcome to blame the Bush-Clinton created bullshit system of economics on Ronald Reagan, it's not factual, but neither is chanting "Learned Helplessness" in response to facts you dislike.

Putin's Demographic Reforms, the Crimean Reclamation, the Victory in the Ossetian War, Victories in Dagestan and Chechnya, stabilization of Russia, promotion of education, internet proliferation, economic boom, massive increase in the Standard of Living, etc, etc, etc - have all been good things.

4. The Baltics are currently moving to ban RT - an example of McFreedom no doubt: https://www.pri.org/file/2020-07-28/bal ... dcaster-rt Nothing says freedom of speech like suppressing it. Furthermore, smaller countries are going to be safer, that's just the nature of the beast - shall I compare the safety of Lichtenstein to France or the UK? Kind of desperate to throw an issue based on country-size, don't ya think? As for economic indicators, "dictatorial" Belarus is doing twice better than "democratic" Ukraine in terms of GDP-PPP-per capita, so you'd expect the Baltics to do twice as good as Russia, right?

Except, much like the rest of your post, that's also bullshit. According to the IMG, Russia's at $30,820 and Latvia's at $32,987. Much better? Did you even look at the facts before you made that disaster of a post?

5. I'll go into threads where someone's arguing against the facts, and point that out, if I have the time, but you do you.

6. I'm talking about Putin's tenure, and Russia wasn't the number one economy when he took over. If I was praising Gorbachev or Yeltsin, you'd have a point, but I've admitted, repeatedly, that both were total and utter disasters, even greater than the post that I'm responding to. Right now Russia's number five, ahead of Germany, according to the IMF, and the reason that I'm using the IMF, is because they have 2020 numbers whereas World Bank has 2019 numbers. Fairly soon Russia will surpass Japan, and be number four.

Who's ahead of Russia? The US - an economic superpower, as well as China & India - countries with over one billion people. Being in the top five ain't bad when that's the company you're in. That all ya got? Figures.

[Plzen]

Shit, is it time for another coup already?

There's nothing like having an unscheduled vacation because your school is "closed due to civil unrest". Thailand is the textbook case of a country being most unstable when they're neither a fully closed society nor a fully open one.

All considered, this isn't the first time a serious student movement in favour of democracy and greater freedoms shook the country, and I don't see any reason why they would be more successful this time than in all the failures that came before. Absolute best case scenario they overturn the current junta and institute a more democratic constitution that will hold for all of a few years until the next military coup. I very much doubt that anything fundamental will change about Thai politics.

[The Archregimancy]

Furthermore, claiming that only half of the post-Soviet countries have Learned Helplessness is racist, since all of them were under the Russian Empire, had brief independence, and fell under the USSR. But only half have Learned Helplessness? Who theorized that one, Professor Bullshitter McCrap?

*** Warned for flaming/baiting. ***

Fine: 'your argument is crappy bullshit'.

Not fine: 'I'm going to call you Professor Bullshitter McCrap'.

It's possible that you were trying to call up the shade of a hypothetical Professor Bullshitter McCrap rather than directly call another poster Professor Bullshitter McCrap; but this isn't at all clear from your post, which is why we have the warning.

[Shofercia]

Furthermore, claiming that only half of the post-Soviet countries have Learned Helplessness is racist, since all of them were under the Russian Empire, had brief independence, and fell under the USSR. But only half have Learned Helplessness? Who theorized that one, Professor Bullshitter McCrap?

*** Warned for flaming/baiting. ***

Fine: 'your argument is crappy bullshit'.

Not fine: 'I'm going to call you Professor Bullshitter McCrap'.

It's possible that you were trying to call up the shade of a hypothetical Professor Bullshitter McCrap rather than directly call another poster Professor Bullshitter McCrap; but this isn't at all clear from your post, which is why we have the warning.

I was talking about the theorist behind the theory of Learned Helplessness, not my opponent. It was theorized by Martin Seligman, who doesn't have an NSG profile, although I also doubt that he's mythical, considering that he's an actual human being.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Starting to look close to the end for the Thai monarchy. I wonder where he will go in exile? Germany I expect, with his $30 billion.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

I hope Thailand keeps it's monarchy, either with a new King or this one, just with criticism being allowed.

[Plzen]

Starting to look close to the end for the Thai monarchy. I wonder where he will go in exile? Germany I expect, with his $30 billion.

I will speculate against an end to the Thai monarchy. The army in Thailand is - like in most countries - a firmly conservative institution, with a long history of hostility against student activists. To quote a YouTube video I watched some time ago, the people only storm the palace when the army lets them.

I’m a republican through and through and I would very much like monarchy to disappear off the face of this planet, but for this one country, during this one crisis, it just isn’t going to happen.

[Debate Proxy 1]

Frankly, Thailand would be much better off as a republic.

[Bombadil]

Starting to look close to the end for the Thai monarchy. I wonder where he will go in exile? Germany I expect, with his $30 billion.

I will speculate against an end to the Thai monarchy. The army in Thailand is - like in most countries - a firmly conservative institution, with a long history of hostility against student activists. To quote a YouTube video I watched some time ago, the people only storm the palace when the army lets them.

I’m a republican through and through and I would very much like monarchy to disappear off the face of this planet, but for this one country, during this one crisis, it just isn’t going to happen.

Yes, and they've just banned the protests and any media discussion of it.. ultimately the issue for Thailand is one of enormous inequality between the elites of Bangkok and the mass rural population. The elites have the military and, alas, the military has the power and inclination to halt any populist uprising.

I assume they have a degree of China backing, China doesn't want any popular uprising in the region to be successful.

[Plzen]

Yes, and they've just banned the protests and any media discussion of it.. ultimately the issue for Thailand is one of enormous inequality between the elites of Bangkok and the mass rural population. The elites have the military and, alas, the military has the power and inclination to halt any populist uprising.

I actually have some degree of faith for the longer-term future.

I complain about the disproportionate influence the United States has on global culture quite a bit, but that's in the context of other, better-functioning democracies. In countries like Thailand that influence is a progressive force. I've met and talked to quite a few scions of elite Southeast Asian families during my adolescence and young adult years, and while I can't possibly claim that it was anything resembling a representative sample, I was struck by how liberal (in the American sense of that word) the affluent Bangkok youth is.

Perhaps it's a fancy of youth that will disappear as people grow older, more pragmatic, and have to bear more responsibilities. Perhaps these people are interested in establishing themselves in more liberal regimes rather than establishing deep roots in their home country, as elite youth in developing anocracies so often are. And there's certainly reason to believe that there has been selection bias; I, as a foreigner, would obviously come into contact with that section of Southeast Asian society most exposed to foreign ideas.

But still, just maybe, if things go right, given another 20 years... the military would find it rather more difficult to crush dissent when it comes from people with wealth, power, and connections. Some kind of constitutional monarchy on the British model probably isn't out of the question in the long run. I just don't think it will happen now, over this particular crisis.

[Debate Proxy 1]

Yes, and they've just banned the protests and any media discussion of it.. ultimately the issue for Thailand is one of enormous inequality between the elites of Bangkok and the mass rural population. The elites have the military and, alas, the military has the power and inclination to halt any populist uprising.

I actually have some degree of faith for the longer-term future.

I complain about the disproportionate influence the United States has on global culture quite a bit, but that's in the context of other, better-functioning democracies. In countries like Thailand that influence is a progressive force. I've met and talked to quite a few scions of elite Southeast Asian families during my adolescence and young adult years, and while I can't possibly claim that it was anything resembling a representative sample, I was struck by how liberal (in the American sense of that word) the affluent Bangkok youth is.

Perhaps it's a fancy of youth that will disappear as people grow older, more pragmatic, and have to bear more responsibilities. Perhaps these people are interested in establishing themselves in more liberal regimes rather than establishing deep roots in their home country, as elite youth in developing anocracies so often are. And there's certainly reason to believe that there has been selection bias; I, as a foreigner, would obviously come into contact with that section of Southeast Asian society most exposed to foreign ideas.

But still, just maybe, if things go right, given another 20 years... the military would find it rather more difficult to crush dissent when it comes from people with wealth, power, and connections. Some kind of constitutional monarchy on the British model probably isn't out of the question in the long run. I just don't think it will happen now, over this particular crisis.

Interesting points, even if I am all for that American influence.

I could raise a question, though: what about a constitutional monarchy somewhat on the Japanese model, rather than the British one? That would be, in my mind, a better compromise, as it at least abolished the aristocracy. Lafayette, in France, favored this approach, keeping Louis XVI but abolishing aristocracy.

At least if the people are armed, as some people (as I understand it; correct me if wrong) in Thailand want, it would be a good preventative against the return of the current government's abuses.

[Kexholm Karelia]

I will speculate against an end to the Thai monarchy. The army in Thailand is - like in most countries - a firmly conservative institution, with a long history of hostility against student activists. To quote a YouTube video I watched some time ago, the people only storm the palace when the army lets them.

I’m a republican through and through and I would very much like monarchy to disappear off the face of this planet, but for this one country, during this one crisis, it just isn’t going to happen.

Yes, and they've just banned the protests and any media discussion of it.. ultimately the issue for Thailand is one of enormous inequality between the elites of Bangkok and the mass rural population. The elites have the military and, alas, the military has the power and inclination to halt any populist uprising.

I assume they have a degree of China backing, China doesn't want any popular uprising in the region to be successful.

Thai culture is centered around the concept of a primate city, and historically had been like that. It is comparable to the Hunger Games country, where the capitol lives in luxury while the rural population slaves away for their benefit

[Resilient Acceleration]

Yes, and they've just banned the protests and any media discussion of it.. ultimately the issue for Thailand is one of enormous inequality between the elites of Bangkok and the mass rural population. The elites have the military and, alas, the military has the power and inclination to halt any populist uprising.

I assume they have a degree of China backing, China doesn't want any popular uprising in the region to be successful.

Thai culture is centered around the concept of a primate city, and historically had been like that. It is comparable to the Hunger Games country, where the capitol lives in luxury while the rural population slaves away for their benefit

Is that related to the fact that Hunger Games' three finger salute had been adopted as the official symbol of the protests for years?

[Resilient Acceleration]

Starting to look close to the end for the Thai monarchy. I wonder where he will go in exile? Germany I expect, with his $30 billion.

I will speculate against an end to the Thai monarchy. The army in Thailand is - like in most countries - a firmly conservative institution, with a long history of hostility against student activists. To quote a YouTube video I watched some time ago, the people only storm the palace when the army lets them.

I’m a republican through and through and I would very much like monarchy to disappear off the face of this planet, but for this one country, during this one crisis, it just isn’t going to happen.

Ah, I see you watch CGP Grey as well. Well, tbh I think Thailand would need somekind of serious crisis for it to reform. I'd say that the 1998 Indonesian Reformation that overthrew the 32-years old military dictatorship was a spectacular success compared to the possibilities, for example.

[Suriyanakhon]

Frankly, Thailand would be much better off as a republic.

A republic would be extremely unpopular and heavily controlled by the military. While there are large segments of the populace that are discontent with the current incumbent to the throne, most people still don't want to directly attack the institution even outside of lèse-majesté laws. Most of them have grown up in a heavily Buddhist culture where kings are seen as semi-divine.

[Sungoldy-China]

Thailand is actually ruled by warlords rather than a monarch.
Thais may be able to overthrow the monarchy, but since most Thais are connected to the military,
overthrowing the monarchy will not change the status quo in Thailand.

[Resilient Acceleration]

Frankly, Thailand would be much better off as a republic.

A republic would be extremely unpopular and heavily controlled by the military. While there are large segments of the populace that are discontent with the current incumbent to the throne, most people still don't want to directly attack the institution even outside of lèse-majesté laws. Most of them have grown up in a heavily Buddhist culture where kings are seen as semi-divine.

There ought to be clear casus belli and unified goals that will make the replacement of the current regime an obvious solution, tbh. There's a reason why democratic leaders branded the 1998 overthrow of Indonesia's New Order military regime as "Reformation", rather than a revolution. The disastrous 1997 economic crisis (which resulted in a GDP contraction of -15%) laid bare the flagrant shortcomings and degeneracies of the New Order, and convinced many in the ruling elite that the collapsing old regime is simply unsalvageable and accepting actual reforms would be the best to preserve both their interests and our nation's survival. I don't really see that kind of thing in Thailand right now.

[Kowani]

Despite the Thai government’s totalitarian decree, protesters swarm in the thousands.

[-Ocelot-]

Actual Monarchy is outdated and I'm surprised it still exists in some nations. I hope they manage to reform it peacefully, so we don't end in a situation like Syria's.

Neither God nor King nor Master shall prevent the Liberty of Humanity.

Or General Secretary.

[SD_Film Artists]

Hello fellow monarchists! Nice to see another country embraci.....ooh it's *that* kind of reformation. Dang....