Même le roi le plus révéré au monde

Même le roi le plus révéré au monde, un roi adulé par son peuple comme un demi-dieu, n’est pas immortel. C’est la triste vérité qui s’est rappelée à la mémoire des Thaïlandais en novembre, lors des six jours de la fastueuse cérémonie crématoire organisée en l’honneur de la princesse Galyani [décédée en début d’année], la sœur aînée de leur roi bien-aimé Bhumibol Adulyadej. Les défilés ont rassemblé un cortège de voitures dorées et une armée de figurants en costume traditionnel. A Bangkok, certains ont vu dans ces funérailles une répétition générale de celles du roi Bhumibol, qui a célébré son 81e anniversaire le 5 décembre et dont le règne – déjà long de soixante-deux ans – ne saurait se prolonger très longtemps encore.
Les obsèques de la princesse Galyani n’ont que brièvement apaisé les dissensions politiques qui déchirent depuis trois ans les partisans de Thaksin Shinawatra, le Premier ministre renversé par les généraux royalistes lors du coup d’Etat de 2006, et le mouvement d’opposition soutenu par la majeure partie de l’élite traditionnelle de la capitale, dont visiblement la reine Sirikit. Les cérémonies étaient achevées depuis à peine un jour quand une grenade a explosé au milieu des protestataires anti-Thaksin, faisant une victime. Ces derniers, regroupés au sein de l’Alliance du peuple pour la démocratie (PAD), qui occupaient le siège du gouvernement depuis le mois d’août, ont alors investi les principaux aéroports de la capitale, semant le chaos [350 000 passagers ont été bloqués sur place et le coût pour l’économie est colossal]. Le siège n’a été levé que huit jours plus tard, à la suite de la dissolution des principaux partis de la coalition gouvernementale pro-­Thaksin ordonnée par la Cour constitutionnelle.

Outre les craintes légitimes liées aux abus de pouvoir de M. Thaksin, une des inquiétudes des royalistes est qu’à travers ses politiques populistes d’aide médicale et de microcrédit, l’ancien magnat des télécommunications se bâtisse un système népotique et acquière une popularité, se posant en rival du roi. Autre frayeur : par le passé, M. Thaksin aurait redoublé d’attentions à l’égard du prince héritier Maha Vajiralongkorn. Une générosité qui aurait eu pour dessein de s’assurer une influence en prévision de son couronnement.

C’est notamment pour ces raisons et quelques autres qu’il est nécessaire, si l’on veut prendre la mesure de l’infortune de ce pays de 64 millions d’habitants, de connaître l’histoire trop rarement contée du roi Bhumibol. Bon nombre de Thaïlandais ne manqueront pas de s’offusquer en lisant ce qui suit ; ils préféreront la fable officielle de leur roi adoré. Mais ses actions passées sont à l’origine d’un conflit qui coupe le pays en deux. Il est nécessaire de les passer au crible.

Même dépouillée de la mythologie que ses courtisans ont mis des dizaines d’années à élaborer, l’histoire de Bhumibol reste exceptionnelle. Né aux Etats-Unis, ce fils d’une princesse de la dynastie Chakri et d’un roturier métis chinois hérite accidentellement d’un trône à deux doigts de disparaître. Il saura lui redonner vie, accouchant même d’une des monarchies les plus puissantes et les plus prospères de la planète, la seule sans aucun doute des temps modernes à avoir étendu son pouvoir politique à une telle échelle. Le charisme du roi, son intelligence, ses talents (de saxophoniste et de faiseur de pluie, une science pour laquelle il détient un brevet européen), son profond attachement au bien-être de son peuple expliquent l’adoration qui lui est vouée à l’intérieur des frontières et l’admiration qu’on lui témoigne à travers le monde.

Cette icône a de toute évidence atteint son zénith en 1992. Alors que l’armée avait ouvert le feu sur des dizaines de manifestants démocrates à Bangkok, la télévision a diffusé les images du chef de l’armée (et Premier ministre) Suchinda Kraprayoon et de la figure de proue des protestataires Chamlong Srimuang (aujourd’hui un fidèle de la PAD) se prosternant devant le monarque. Peu après, le général Suchinda présentait sa démission tandis que la restauration de la démocratie auréolait plus encore le roi Bhumibol.

Quoi qu’il en soit, son histoire est aussi celle d’un souverain qui a perdu foi en la démocratie (pour autant qu’il l’ait jamais eue) et qui n’a cessé de s’ingérer dans les coulisses politiques. Et aujourd’hui, au crépuscule de son règne, il risque de laisser derrière lui une Thaïlande orpheline qui n’est pas préparée à vivre sans son “Père”, comme elle le surnomme affectueusement. On ne peut comprendre comment ce pays, il y a encore peu parangon du pluralisme politique sur le continent asiatique, a sombré dans un tel “désordre” (le roi lui-même l’a déclaré en 2006) sans lever l’épais voile de vénération qui entoure sa personne.
Mais ce n’est pas chose facile. Car paradoxalement, même un roi censé être adulé par l’ensemble de ses sujets, ou presque, a besoin de protection. Et cette protection a pris la forme de la législation la plus impitoyable du monde en matière de lèse-majesté*. Tandis que la plupart des monarchies ont aboli ou cessé d’appliquer ce genre de loi, la Thaïlande l’a durcie dans les années 1970. Même la critique la plus modérée et la plus pesée à l’encontre de la couronne est proscrite, et passible d’une peine allant jusqu’à quinze ans de prison. Cette législation de fer a un effet évident non seulement sur le peuple thaïlandais, mais aussi sur des générations de diplomates occidentaux, d’universitaires et de journalistes qui, à quelques rares exceptions près, s’autocensurent docilement.

A l’origine de cette situation se trouve – entre autres – la guerre du Vietnam. A l’époque, les Etats-Unis voyaient dans le roi Bhumibol un allié sûr contre les rouges. Conscients de la valeur du souverain en tant qu’icône anticommuniste, les Américains ont injecté une cascade de capitaux dans une campagne de propagande visant à ce que chaque foyer du royaume soit pourvu d’un portrait royal. Aujourd’hui encore, s’ils sont prompts à dénoncer les manquements démocratiques des autres pays d’Asie, les Etats-Unis s’élèvent rarement contre les interpellations de Thaïlandais et de ressortissants étrangers coupables d’avoir sali la monarchie. Les journalistes et les universitaires étrangers, qui ont besoin de visas et d’un accès aux services administratifs pour leur travail, mettent d’ailleurs le plus souvent en sourdine la question épineuse de la royauté.

Résultat de cette conspiration du silence : il n’a été publié à ce jour qu’une seule biographie sérieuse de ce monarque, pourtant l’un des plus grands leaders politiques actuels d’Asie. The King Never Smiles [Le roi qui ne sourit jamais], du journaliste américain Paul Handley (2006) [non traduit en français], affirme que la restauration du pouvoir et du prestige de la monarchie thaïlandaise est “l’une des grandes histoires non racontée du xxe siècle”. L’auteur fait remarquer que, depuis sa parution, il y a deux ans, personne n’a mis en cause les principaux faits révélés par l’ouvrage. Pas même les histoires les plus accablantes, de celles qui font voler en éclats le mythe selon lequel le souverain ne se mêlerait que rarement de politique, et que s’il venait à le faire ce ne serait que pour servir le bien. Voici sans doute l’accusation la plus grave : en 1976, le roi aurait fermé les yeux sur la constitution de milices de droite qui, aux côtés de l’armée, ont par la suite réprimé dans un bain de sang des manifestations étudiantes pacifiques. Comme c’est souvent le cas dans l’histoire moderne de la Thaïlande, l’agitation de 1976 a servi de prétexte pour renverser le gouvernement en place et le remplacer par une équipe ayant reçu l’assentiment du palais.

Bhumibol avait 18 ans lorsqu’il a accédé au trône, en 1946, à la mort mystérieuse de son frère, le roi Ananda. Aussi est-il rapidement tombé sous l’emprise de ses oncles, des princes avides de restaurer le pouvoir et le faste que la couronne avait perdus depuis l’abolition de la monarchie absolue, en 1932. Dans les années 1950, après avoir gagné en carrure, il s’attela à mettre sur pied un système complet de népotisme. Grâce à l’attribution d’honneurs divers en récompense des dons versés à la cause royale, la monarchie est tout naturellement devenue le premier fonds caritatif du pays. Ce “réseau monarchique”, comme l’a surnommé Duncan McCargo, un universitaire britannique, a replacé le roi au centre de la société thaïlandaise, lui rendant une grande part de son pouvoir d’autrefois.

Un refrain inspiré par des années de discours royaux est désormais repris en chœur par l’Alliance du peuple pour la démocratie : une vie politique reposant sur des élections est irrémédiablement pourrie et le pays se porterait mieux s’il était pris en main comme il faut par des “hommes de valeur” soutenus par la couronne. Chantre de ce précepte tout au long de la parodie de démocratie des années 1980, le général Prem Tinsulanonda, assis dans son fauteuil de Premier ministre non élu, a fait plus que quiconque pour exalter l’image de demi-dieu du roi. Aujourd’hui président du conseil privé de Bhumibol, le général Prem est censé se tenir à l’écart des affaires politiques. Mais ce n’est qu’un mythe de plus. Il est en effet largement considéré comme l’instigateur du coup d’Etat de 2006. Rappelons que, peu de temps auparavant, il avait expliqué à l’armée qu’elle appartenait au roi et que M. Thaksin n’était qu’un simple pion, un “cavalier” interchangeable.

L’armée est pour beaucoup dans les problèmes du pays. Ses généraux s’imaginent avoir le droit de renverser tout gouvernement qui ne sied pas au monarque ou aux militaires, obéissant au moindre signe de la monarchie, laquelle a approuvé quantité de ses coups d’Etat. Paul Handley, l’auteur de The King Never Smiles, accuse le roi d’avoir sapé l’Etat de droit. De fait, l’influence de Bhumibol est telle que,

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 1:

Even the most revered King in the world, a King revered by his people as a demi-God, is not immortal. It is the sad truth that recalled the memory of Thais in November, during the six days of the glitzy crematory ceremony in honour of the Princess Galyani [died at the beginning of the year], the elder sister of their beloved King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Parades brought a golden motorcade and an army of extras in traditional costume. Bangkok, some have seen in the funeral a dress rehearsal from those of King Bhumibol, who celebrated his 81st birthday on December 5 and the - already long sixty-two-year - reign cannot be extended very long yet.
.The funeral of Princess Galyani have that briefly quieted the political strife that ripped out three years supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, the Prime Minister overthrown by royalist generals in 2006 coup, and the opposition movement supported by most of the traditional elite in the capital, which visibly Queen Sirikit. The ceremonies were completed for barely one day when a grenade exploded in the middle of the protesters anti-Thaksin, as a victim. The latter, grouped in the people's Alliance for democracy (PAD), which occupied the seat of Government since August, then invested the major airports in the capital, sowing chaos [350,000 passengers have been blocked on the spot and the cost to the economy is colossal]. The siege was broken only eight days later, following the dissolution of the main parties in the coalition Government pro-Thaksin ordered by the Constitutional Court

in addition to legitimate fears related to the abuse of power by Mr Thaksin, one of the concerns of the royalists is only through its populist policies of medical aid and microcredit, the former telecommunications Tycoon is building a crony system and acquire popularity, posing as a rival to the King. Another fear: in the past, Mr. Thaksin would have intensified attention with respect to crown prince Maha Vajiralongkorn. A generosity that would have had the purpose to ensure influence in preparation for his coronation.

it is for these reasons and others that it is necessary, if one wants to take the measure of the unfortunate of this country of 64 million people, to know the story too rarely told of King Bhumibol. Many Thais will inevitably take offense when reading what follows; they will prefer the official fable of their beloved King. But his past actions are the cause of a conflict that cut the country in two. It is necessary to sift through.

even stripped of Mythology his courtiers have put dozens of years to develop, the history of Bhumibol remains outstanding. Born in the United States, this son of a Princess of the Chakri dynasty and a Métis Chinese commoner accidentally inherits a throne on the brink of disappearing. It will surely give life, giving birth to one of the most powerful and prosperous planet monarchies. the only no doubt modern-day extended its power policy on such a scale. The charism of the King, his intelligence, his talents (saxophonist and Rainmaker, a science for which he holds a European patent), his deep commitment to the welfare of his people explain the adoration that he is doomed within the borders and admiration on him shows across the world.

this icon has clearly reached its zenith in 1992. While the army opened fire on dozens of democratic protesters in Bangkok, the television broadcast pictures of the head of the Army (and Prime Minister) Suchinda Kraprayoon and figurehead of the protesters of Chamlong Srimuang (now a loyal supporter of the PAD) bowing down to the monarch. Shortly thereafter, general Suchinda presented his resignation while the restoration of the democracy auréolait more King Bhumibol.

whatever,. his story is also that of a ruler who has lost faith in democracy (for as much as he has ever had it) and who has stopped interfering in the political wings. And today, in the twilight of his reign, he may leave behind an orphan Thailand which is not prepared to live without her 'father', as it affectionately. Cannot understand how this country, there is still little paragon of political pluralism on the Asian continent, sank into such a "mess" (the King himself stated in 2006) without lifting the thick veil of reverence that surrounds his person.
but this is not easy. Because paradoxically, even a King that is supposed to be adored by all of his subjects, or almost, a need for protection. And that protection took the form of the most ruthless law of lese-majeste world *. While most of the monarchies were abolished or ceased to apply this kind of law, has stiffened it the Thailand in the 1970s. Even criticism the more moderate and more weigh against the Crown is prohibited, and punishable by up to 15 years in prison. This railway legislation has an obvious effect not only on the people of Thailand, but generations of Western diplomats, academics and journalists also which, in a few rare exceptions, self-censor obediently.

the origin of this situation lies – among others – the Viet Nam war. At the time, the United States saw King Bhumibol a reliable ally against the reds. Aware of the value of the sovereign as an anti-Communist icon, the Americans injected a cascade of capital in a propaganda campaign aimed at what every household of the Kingdom is equipped with a royal portrait. Even today, If they are quick to denounce the democratic failings of other Asian countries, the United States rarely protest against arrests of Thais and foreigners guilty of having soiled the monarchy. Journalists and foreign academics, who need visas and access to administrative services for their work, are also mostly muted the thorny question of the kingship.

result of this conspiracy of silence: it was published to date as a single serious biography of the monarch, yet one of the greatest current political leaders in Asia. The King Never Smiles [the King never smiles], of the American journalist Paul Handley (2006) [not translated in french], said that the restoration of the power and prestige of the Thai monarchy is "one of the great stories not told of the 20th century". The author notes that, since its publication two years ago, nobody has put in question the main facts revealed by the book. Not even the most damning stories, those who steal shattered the myth that the ruler is balanced only rarely of policy, and that if he had to do it would be to serve the good. Here is probably the most serious charge: in 1976, the King would have closed their eyes to the constitution of right militias which, alongside the army, have subsequently repressed in a bloodbath of peaceful student demonstrations. As is often the case in the modern history of the Thailand, the hustle and bustle of 1976 served as pretext to overthrow the Government and replace it with a team having received the consent of the Palace.

Bhumibol was 18 years old when he acceded to the throne in 1946,. in the mysterious death of his brother, King Ananda. Also it quickly fell under the influence of his uncles, princes eager to restore the power and splendour that the Crown had lost since the abolition of the absolute monarchy in 1932. In the 1950s, after gaining in stature, began to establish a complete system of nepotism. Thanks to the allocation of various honours as a reward for donations to the Royal cause, the monarchy quite naturally became the first Charity Fund of the country. This 'network monarchy', as nicknamed him Duncan McCargo, a British academic, relocated the King in the centre of Thai society, making it a large part of its power of yesteryear.

A song inspired by years of Royal speech is now repeated in unison by the Alliance of the people for democracy: a political life based on elections is irremediably rotten and the country would be better if it was taken in hand as needed by "men of value" supported by the Crown. Bard of this precept throughout parody of democracy in the 1980s, general Prem Tinsulanonda, sitting in his armchair of non-elected Prime Minister, has done more than anyone to exalt the image of the King demigod. Today president of Bhumibol's Privy Council, general Prem is supposed to stay away from political affairs. But this is only a myth more. Indeed, it is widely regarded as the instigator of the coup of 2006. Recall that, shortly before, he had explained to the army that it belonged to the King and that Mr. Thaksin was a simple pawn, a "cavalier" interchangeable.

the army is for many in the country's problems. His generals think have the right to overthrow any Government which does not suit the monarch or the military, at the slightest sign of the monarchy, which has approved quantity of its coups. Paul Handley, the author of The King Never Smiles, accused King of having undermined the rule of law. In fact, the influence of Bhumibol is such that

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 2:

Even the most revered in the world king, a king loved by his people as a demigod, is not immortal. This is the sad truth that remembered the memory of Thais in November, during the six days of the crematorium lavish ceremony held in honor of Princess Galyani [died earlier this year], the elder sister of their beloved King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The parades were attended by a motorcade gold and an army of extras in traditional costume. In Bangkok, some have seen the funeral of a dress rehearsal those of King Bhumibol, who celebrated his 81st birthday on December 5 and his kingdom - already long sixty-two years - can not continue much longer.
funeral Princess Galyani have only briefly eased political tensions that tear for three years supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister ousted by royalist generals in the coup of 2006 and the opposition movement backed by Most of the traditional elite of the capital, which visibly Queen Sirikit. The ceremonies were completed for just one day when a grenade exploded in the middle of the anti-Thaksin protesters, killing one. These, grouped in the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), who occupied the seat of government since August, then raided the main city airports, causing chaos [350,000 passengers was stuck in place and the cost to the economy is huge]. The siege was lifted only eight days later, following the dissolution of the main parties in the pro-Thaksin coalition government ordered by the Constitutional Court. Besides the legitimate concerns over the abuse of power by Thaksin, a concerns of the royalists is that through its populist policies of medical aid and microcredit, the former telecommunications tycoon is building a nepotistic system and acquire popularity, posing as a rival king. Another fear: in the past, Thaksin would have redoubled attention in respect of Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn. Generosity that would have been its purpose to secure influence in preparation for his coronation. It is for these reasons and others that it is necessary if one wants to take the measure of misfortune in this country 64 million people, to know the story too seldom told of King Bhumibol. Many Thais are sure to be offended by reading the following; they prefer the official fable of their king loved it. But his past actions are the cause of a conflict that cuts the country in two. It is necessary to sift through. Even stripped of the mythology his courtiers have decades to develop, the story of Bhumibol is exceptional. Born in the United States, this son of a princess of the Chakri dynasty and a Chinese mestizo commoner accidentally inherits a throne to the brink of extinction. He will give it new life, even giving birth to one of the most powerful monarchies and most successful in the world, the only certainly in modern times to have extended its political power on this scale. The charisma of the king, his intelligence, his talents (saxophonist and rainmaker, a science for which he holds a European patent), its deep commitment to the welfare of his people explain the adoration which is doomed to within the borders and admiration shown him around the world. This icon has clearly reached its zenith in 1992 While the army had opened fire on dozens of protesters in Bangkok Democrats, television broadcast images of army chief (and prime minister) Suchinda Kraprayoon and figurehead protesters Chamlong Srimuang (now a faithful PAD) worshiping the monarch. Shortly after, General Suchinda submitted his resignation while the restoration of democracy haloed more King Bhumibol. Anyway, his story is the story of a king who has lost faith in democracy (so far as 'he has ever had) and that has continued to interfere in the political scenes. And now, in the twilight of his reign, it may leave behind an orphan Thailand is not prepared to live without his "Father" as she is affectionately known. One can not understand how this country, there is still little paragon of political pluralism in Asia, fell into such a "disorder" (the king himself said in 2006) without lifting the veil of reverence that surrounds him. But it's not easy. Because, paradoxically, even a king supposed to be adored by all his subjects, almost, in need of protection. And this protection has taken the form of the world's most grueling legislation treason *. While most monarchies were abolished or ceased to apply this kind of law, Thailand has hardened in the 1970s even the most moderate and most critically weighed against the crown is prohibited, and punishable by up to fifteen years in prison. This legislation iron has an obvious effect on not only the Thai people, but also for generations of Western diplomats, academics and journalists who, with few exceptions, censor themselves obediently. Originally this situation is - among others - the Vietnam War. At the time, the United States saw in King Bhumibol a staunch ally against the Reds. Aware of the value of the sovereign as an icon anticommunist Americans have injected capital into a cascade of a propaganda campaign to ensure that every household in the kingdom is provided with a royal portrait. Today, they are quick to denounce the democratic shortcomings of other Asian countries, the United States rarely rise against the arrests of Thai and foreign nationals guilty of dirty monarchy. Journalists and foreign academics, who need visas and access to government services for their work, put also mostly muted the thorny issue of royalty. result of this conspiracy of silence: we do has been published to date only one serious biography of the monarch, yet one of the greatest contemporary Asian political leaders. The King Never Smiles [The king who never smiles], the American journalist Paul Handley (2006) [not translated in French] says that the restoration of power and prestige of the Thai monarchy is "one of the great non-stories told of the twentieth century. " The author points out that since its release two years ago, no one has challenged key facts revealed by the book. Not even the most damning stories of those who shatter the myth that the sovereign would mix rarely politics, and that if he were to do so it would only be used for good. This is perhaps the most serious charge: in 1976, the king would have condoned the creation of right-wing militias, which, alongside the army, were subsequently repressed in bloodshed student protests peaceful. As is often the case in modern Thai history, agitation of 1976 served as a pretext to oust the current government and replace it with a team that received the assent of the palace. Bhumibol was 18 when he acceded to the throne in 1946, the mysterious death of his brother, King Ananda. So it quickly fell under the influence of his uncles, princes eager to restore the power and pomp that the crown had lost since the abolition of the absolute monarchy in 1932 In 1950, after gaining build, he set about establishing a comprehensive system of nepotism. With the awarding of various honors in recognition of donations to the royal cause, the monarchy has naturally become the first charitable fund of the country. This "network monarchy", as nicknamed Duncan McCargo, a British academic, has placed the king in the center of Thai society, giving him much of his power of old. A chorus inspired by years of royal speeches is now repeated in chorus by the People's Alliance for Democracy: a political life based on elections is hopelessly rotten and the country would be better if it was taken over properly by "good men" supported by the crown. Champion of this precept throughout the parody of democracy of the 1980s, General Prem Tinsulanonda, sitting in his chair unelected Prime Minister, has done more than anyone to exalt the image of demigod king. Today President of Bhumibol's Privy Council, General Prem is supposed to keep out of political affairs. But it is a myth more. Indeed, it is widely regarded as the instigator of the coup of 2006 recalled that shortly before, he had told the army that belonged to the king and that Thaksin was a pawn, a "jumper" interchangeably. army is largely responsible for the country's problems. His generals think they have the right to overthrow any government that does not suit the monarch or military, obeying the slightest sign of the monarchy, which approved amount of its coups. Paul Handley, author of The King Never Smiles, accusing the king to have undermined the rule of law. Indeed, the influence is such that Bhumibol,

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 3:

Even the king the most revered in the world, a king adulation by his people as a semi-god, is not immortal. That is the sad truth that he is recalled to the memory of the Thai in November, during the six days of the glitzy crematorium ceremony organised in honor of the princess (who died in the beginning of the year), the elder sister of their beloved King Bhumibol Adulyadej.The parades have brought together a procession of golden cars and an army of extras in traditional costume. In Bangkok, some have seen in these funerals a dress rehearsal for those of King Bhumibol, who celebrated his 81st birthday on 5 December and whose reign - already long of sixty-two years - cannot continue very long yet.
The funeral of the princess have only briefly soothes the political divisions that are tearing apart since three years the supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, the Prime Minister overthrown by the generals royalists during the coup of 2006, and the opposition movement supported by the major part of the traditional elite of the capital, including obviously the Queen Sirikit.The ceremonies were completed since barely a day when a grenade exploded in the middle of the protesters anti-Thaksin, doing a victim. These latter, grouped within the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), which had occupied the seat of government since the month of August, were then invested the main airports in the capital,Sowing chaos [350,000 passengers have been stuck in place and the cost to the economy is colossal]. The seat was lifted only eight days later, following the dissolution of the major parties in the coalition government pro-­Thaksin ordered by the Constitutional Court.

In addition to the legitimate fears related to the abuse of power of Mr. Thaksin,One of the concerns of the royalists is that through its populist policies of medical aid and microcredit, the mogul of telecommunications is building a system nepotique and acquires a popularity, posing as rival of the king. Another fear: in the past, Mr. Thaksin would have redoubled its attentions to the regard of the crown prince Maha Vajiralongkorn.A generosity that would have had to deliberately to ensure an influence in anticipation of his coronation.

This is especially for these reasons and a few others that it is necessary, if one wants to take the measure of the misfortune of this country of 64 million inhabitants, to know the history too rarely tale of King Bhumibol.Many Thai people do not fail to be offended by reading this that follows; they prefer the official fable of their king loved it. But his past actions are the origin of a conflict which cut the country in two. It is necessary to sift.

even stripped of the mythology that his minions have put dozens of years to develop,The history of Bhumibol remains exceptional. Born in the USA, this son of a princess of the Chakri dynasty and a commoner metis chinese accidentally inherited from a throne to two fingers to disappear. He will give him life, childbirth even of a monarchies of the most powerful and the most prosperous of the planet,The only no doubt in modern times to have extended its political power on such a scale. The charism of the king, his intelligence, his talents (of saxophonist and Rainmaker, a science in which it holds a european patent),His deep commitment to the well-being of its people explain the worship that he is doomed to the inside of the borders and the admiration that he testified to throughout the world.

This icon has obviously reached its zenith in 1992. While the army had opened fire on dozens of protesters democrats in Bangkok,The television has aired the images of the head of the army (and prime minister) Suchinda Kraprayoon and of the figurehead of protesters Chamlong Srimuang (today a faithful to the PAD) bowing down to the monarch. Shortly after, the general Suchinda was submitting his resignation while the restoration of democracy aureolait more still the King Bhumibol.

What it in either,Its history is also that of a sovereign who has lost faith in democracy (for as much as it ever had) and which has not ceased to interfere in the political scenes. And today, in the twilight of his reign, he risks leaving behind him a Thailand an orphan who is not prepared to live without his "father", as she affectionately dubbed.We cannot understand how this country, there is still little paragon of political pluralism on the Asian continent, has dark in such a "disorder" (the king himself has stated in 2006) without lifting the thick veil of reverence that surrounds his person.
but this is not easy. Because paradoxically, even a king supposed to be admired by the whole of its subjects, or almost,In need of protection. And this protection has taken the form of the legislation the more ruthless of the world in terms of lese-majeste * . While most of the monarchies were abolished or ceased to apply this kind of law, Thailand has hardened in 1970. Even the criticism the most moderate and weighed against the Crown is proscribed,And liable to a penalty of up to fifteen years in prison. This legislation of iron has a clear effect not only on the Thai people, but also on generations of western diplomats, academics and journalists who, with a few rare exceptions, censor themselves docilely.

A the origin of this situation is - among others - the Vietnam war.At that time, the United States saw the King Bhumibol a staunch ally against the reds. Aware of the value of the sovereign as the icon anticommunist, the Americans have injected a cascade of capital in a propaganda campaign aimed at ensuring that every home of the kingdom either provided with a royal portrait. Still today,If they are quick to denounce the democratic shortcomings of the other Asian countries, the United States will rarely raise against the heckling of Thai and foreign nationals convicted of have soiled the monarchy. The journalists and foreign scholars, who have need of visas and access to administrative services for their work,Put elsewhere the more often in mute the thorny question of the kingship.

result of this conspiracy of silence: it has been published to this day only one serious biography of this monarch, yet one of the greatest current political leaders of Asia. The King Never Smiles (The king who never smiles],The American journalist Paul Handley (2006) (non-translated into French), asserts that the restoration of the power and prestige of the Thai monarchy is "one of the great stories not told of the twentieth century". The author pointed out that, since its issuance, two years ago, no one has put in question the main facts revealed by the book.Not even the stories the most damning, of those who are shattered the myth that the sovereign does meddles that rarely in policy, and that if he came to do it would be only to serve the well. Here is without doubt the most serious accusation: in 1976, the king would have closed their eyes to the formation of militias of right which, to the sides of the army,Have subsequently suppressed in a blood bath of student protests peaceful. As is often the case in the modern history of Thailand, the agitation of 1976 has been used as a pretext to overthrow the government in place and replace by a team who have received the consent of the palais.

Bhumibol had 18 years when he came to the throne in 1946,To the mysterious death of his brother, King Ananda. It is also quickly falls under the sway of his uncles, of princes eager to restore the power and the pomp that the Crown had lost since the abolition of the absolute monarchy, 1932. In 1950, after having won in lineman, he is yoked to build a comprehensive system of nepotism.Thanks to the award of honors in various reward donations to the royal cause, the monarchy is quite naturally became the first charitable fund of the country. This "monarchical network", as was nicknamed Duncan McCargo, a British academic, has placed the king in the center of the Thai company, making him a large part of its power to formerly.

A song inspired by years of royal speech is now resumed in choir by the People's Alliance for Democracy: a political life based on elections is irremediably rotten and the country would be better if it was taken in hand as it must be by "men of value" supported by the Crown.Cantor in this precept throughout the parody of democracy of 1980, General Prem Tinsulanonda, sitting in his seat of Prime Minister non-elected, has done more than anyone to glorify the image of half-god of the king. Today president of the privy council of King Bhumibol, general Prem is supposed to be held in the gap of political affairs. But this is only a myth of more.It is in fact widely regarded as the instigator of the coup of 2006. Remember that, a short time before, he had explained to the army that it belonged to the king and that Mr. Thaksin was only a mere pawn, a "jumper" interchangeable.

The army is for many in the problems of the country.His generals will think they have the right to overthrow any government that does not befit the monarch or the military, obedient to the slightest sign of the monarchy, which has approved its amount of coups. Paul Handley, author of The King Never Smiles, accused the king to have undermined the rule of law. In fact, the influence of Bhumibol is such that,