Following the currency crisis in 1997, Thailand has employed two different approaches to respond to external shocks to its economy. The first approach aims to construct a strong state that can effectively manage crises and seeks to become a high-income country through industrial upgrading. This approach was manifested in the Kingdom of Thailand Modernization Framework (KTMF) initiated by the Thaksin government. The second approach relies on more flexible social networks, favoring resilience rather than economic growth to ensure social development. The Sufficiency Economy Philosophy proposed by King Bhumibol was representative of this approach.

Tending to avoid extreme thought and actions, Thais have preferred a middle path when pursuing development policies. This is visible in the balancing act between the Eastern Seaboard Projects (typical of Newly Industrializing Countries) and Kosit’s rural development project (typical of Newly Agro-Industrializing Countries) in the early 1980s, and then again between the state strategy of Thailand 4.0 (2017–36) on the one hand, and the World Bank joint proposal for inclusive growth (2016) and the BCG Economy Model (2019), on the other. However, such Thai-style balancing policies have revealed their limitations in the face of structural problems, such as labor shortages due to the aging society and the lack of human resource development in the realm of digital innovation.

The Thai middle class have long been dominated by and benefited from a conservative ideology. Middle-class intellectuals have not only reproduced the ideology rooted in the meaning of the “Thai nation” and “Thainess” that was established in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries but have changed its meaning and created new conceptions of it. Various artistic and cultural practices have resulted in conservative ideology having an impact on the mental and emotional makeup of the middle class in general. Although the new way of life introduced by globalization and capitalization has created new ideas, value systems, and emotions that are more liberal and democratic, it has not completely replaced the conservative ideology among the middle class. The middle class therefore manifest many ideological contradictions.

Between 2005 and 2014, both conservative and democratic ideals were used to explain problems of the “Thaksin regime,” which led the middle class to join the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC). Throughout the ten years of violent political conflict, middle-class intellectuals convinced the middle class that Thai society was not ready for electoral democracy, and also used an ultra-conservative ideology to instill conservative sentiments. The resulting ultra-conservative ideology became so powerful that it led to the middle class supporting a political role for the monarchy, judiciary, and military.

After the 2014 coup, the ultra-conservative ideology continued to be used by the Thai state and the elites in tandem with a moderate conservative ideology. However, the middle class no longer benefited from conservative ideals. The calls for democracy appeared clearer. Thus, it can be expected that the middle class are in the process of retreating from conservative ideology, although they remain psychologically and emotionally committed to the traditional Thai value system to some degree.

The current inclination towards monarchical absolutism of the Thai government and politics is in essence the actualization of one of the two conflicting tendencies that have been inherent in Thai constitutional monarchy from the start. I intend to trace the political and scholarly discourse about them at some key junctures in modern Thai history. My main argument is that it had been the royal hegemony of King Rama IX that managed to maintain a relatively stable if tilted balance between the opposing principles of monarchy and democracy and keep the two opposite tendencies at bay. The perceived threat of a disguised republic under the Thaksin regime and the waning of royal hegemony led to a hyper-royalist reaction from the monarchical network that disrupted the pre-existing balance and prepared a potential ground for a virtual absolutism which has been taken over and actualized under the present regime.