Modern Thai constitutionalism, though often meaningful and rich in form and substance, has experienced great volatility since its inception in 1932. At the same time, behind the twenty constitutions that have emerged since then, some recurring ideal-typical figurations that have dominated certain periods of constitutional politics in Thailand can be observed. These historically derived ideal-typical notions of constitutional politics mostly represent inherently hegemonic conceptions. They are defined for instance by how they conceive western and autochthonous elements of constitutionalism, majoritarian electoral politics and the monarchy, the rule of law and authoritarian governance by men. This chapter explores some of the most significant historical experiences and ensuing figurations of Thai constitutionalism that together form a rich reservoir of different, sometimes diverging notions to understand and practice constitutional governance in Thailand.

This chapter describes the long, revolutionary period in which majoritarian patterns of decision-making predominated and matured but were never clearly institutionalized. The House of Commons regularly faced status-related crises that perpetuated majoritarian practices during this period, but these practices were never routinized to the point where they became devoid of profound status implications. If the ultimate question of the English Revolution is the question of why Parliament failed to protect its institutional prerogatives, this chapter provides an answer. Consensual decision-making utterly collapsed amid the disintegration of Parliament’s authority under revolutionary conditions in the later 1640s. The explosion of majoritarian dynamics undermined Parliament’s legitimacy and made its composition subject to the dictates of the army and Oliver Cromwell from the late 1640s to the end of the Interregnum. Majoritarian patterns of decision-making continued up to the Restoration, not necessarily because majority voting had become institutionalized, but because so many questions before the Commons had profound constitutional and status implications in a period of fundamental instability.