The constitutional system of Thailand

In the 16 years that I have been traveling to Thailand I have seen 4 governments and 2 military coups. But what has always puzzled me is that each time they don't just change governments they change constitutions !?
Why the hell ,"Throw out the baby with the bathwater" , every time?
Since the Thai people decided abolish absolute monarchy and become a constitutional monarchy in 1932 they have had 20 constitutions.
In spite of reading the newspaper every day I'm there for the month that I spend there each year and online I still couldn't get a overall understand what the hell was going on.
I was ready to give up on ever understanding Thai politics until I read this excellent book .
Highly recommended .
Attachment 955710
http://www.bloomsburyprofessional.co...9781847316523/

Thanks for the link Sukumvit Boy, if I have time I will try to read it.

In a discussion on the Constitution on BBC Radio 4's lunchtime World at One broadcast yesterday (7 August 2016) the argument was that first, in the short term the security apparatus is deeply worried as King Bhumipol is dying and his son Maha is universally loathed (whereas his wife is revered as 'Princess Angel') and they don't want social unrest on something as fundamental as the identity of the head of state, even if in practice Thailand is ruled by the military.
There is an article on the succession here-
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/13/the-...hailand-apart/

Second, the argument turned to what is sometimes called the 'deep state' in Thailand, an alliance of supporters of the monarchy, the military, major landowners and elites in the 'commanding heights' of the economy who work together, formally and informally to protect their interests. There is a good discussion of the 'deep state' in Thailand in the link below, my only criticism is that the concept does tend sometimes to lend itself to conspiracy theory.
http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/6073

However, there are other examples of a 'deep state' where the military guarantees the integrity of the state while infiltrating the economy to ensure that it also benefits financially, even if this means that decisions are made by uniforms rather than markets, and that economic elites -merchants, landowners, professional classes with capital- can only benefit fully as recruits of a corrupt military system (some states in sub-Sahran Africa, Syria, Egypt and Pakistan have variations on this model).

The most obvious example is Turkey, a state that was created through an alliance of nationalist/fascist zealots and the military. Mustapha Kemal who presided over the creation of the Republic in 1923 became idolized as the 'father of the nation' (Ataturk) even though he arrived on the scene 15 years after the process of nationalisation began. The development of the Turkish state that privileged the military and an ideology of militant secularism was crucial to the creation of a national elite who benefited from this state, and who did so by adopting a 'Turkish' identity as an exclusive right while exterminating or marginalising minorities who didn't fit into the concept of Turkey -Greeks and Armenians on the one hand, Kurds on the other. For most of its existence Turkey's military also buttressed its grip on the country through its Cold War alliance with NATO and a virtual war with Communism and fellow travellers in the country using external 'threats' to crush dissent at home. At the same time, those Turks who resented the attempt to sideline or indeed eliminate Islam from their culture nurtured their own ambitions and in time developed their own 'deep state' strategy to supplant and as seems now likely, erode the secular doctrine of modern Turkey. The two men responsible for this -Recep Erdogan and Mohamed Fethulla Gulen- were once close allies but it is because Erdogan knew this 'deep state' did not yet belong to him that his reaction to the military coup -whether or not it was deliberately provoked by Erdogan or his supporters remains to be clarified- has been so extreme that it appears he is using the opportunity to re-mould Turkey as an Islamic state in all but name. Turkey's deep state can be read about here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state#1990s_onwards

Thailand will retain its monarchy because the military sees it as a bulwark of legitimacy that defines the 'nation' but it has the problem that it wants to select the monarch in question, without it looking as if the monarch is just a puppet of the military. These machinations do not resolve the, dare I say it, 'deeper' problems of opportunity and freedom in the country as a whole. We continue to live in an era where many, maybe most states reject liberal democracy and liberal economies to prefer state management, even if it suppresses ambition and oppresses dissent to reward a minority of the population.

Yes , understanding of the 'deep state ' and the role of the monarchy behind the scenes was the key to understanding Thai politics for me.
Excellent links by the way , thanks.
Another critical feature are the Lese Majeste laws , which silence any criticism or critical discussion of the monarchy in the media. When I was there last December The New York Times announced that it had suspended operations and distribution in Thailand due to repeated instances or articles critical to the monarchy being literally "blacked out" or deleted from Thai editions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8...A9_in_Thailand

At the time there was a brouhaha surrounding some unfortunate remarks made by the US Ambassador ,Glyn Davies ( sounds like a bloody Brit to me mate) which resulted in the Thai Police launching a formal investigation to arrest the US Ambassador for violation of the Lese Majeste laws...?!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/wo...este.html?_r=0

I wonder, does this 'Lese Majeste' law reflect the obsession some Thais have with the historic independence of Thailand because it was not colonised or subdued into an Empire? The monarchy can represent this fierce attachment to an ideal and any criticism of it can be seen as an 'outside attack' since patriotic Thais would surely not attack their own? And this can make political change even harder, but at the same time in this context, the loathing of Maha could be a challenge too far? One wonders why the military do not engineer a gender swap to hand the monarchy to the 'Princess Angel'...there is some debate on this in Japan where changes to dynastic succession have limited the options which have become problematic as the current heir to the throne has no children.

Incidentally, here in the UK the Royal Family is regularly mocked in comedy shows, cartoons and other outlets, but it is perhaps interesting that apart from satire, the language tends not to be insulting or aggressive, and criticism is usually related to something specific, for example the costs of putting on a royal event. Legally, the Queen and her family are as protected from laws on harassment as other members of the public, and most of the time the criticism of the monarchy is civil rather than aggressive, yet it retains its popularity in spite of all that is thrown at it. Maybe that is a the sort of confidence the Thais should show too?

Thailand's military junta leader has released his second syrupy "love song" to the Thai people.
Think Barry Manilow in body armour.:wiggle:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...song-because-y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz02ziF-Eec