M. R. Kukrit Pramoj's theory of good governance and political change: the dialectics of Farang Sakdina

The paper revisits M. R. Kukrit Pramoj’s Farang Sakdina (1957–1958), which challenges the translation and conceptual conflation of European “feudalism” with Thai sakdina. Kukrit contends that western advisors (modernization theory) and Marxists (historical materialism) misapplied European-derived models to Thailand, overlooking distinct historical trajectories and social ecologies. He proposes a dialectical framework in which political systems contain intrinsic tensions (“contradictions”) that drive cyclical change. In Europe, chronic land scarcity tied peasants to land; in Thailand, abundant arable land and labor scarcity tied people personally to nobles and the king, creating different institutional logics. Writing from 2022, the author situates the argument in Thailand’s continued military-centered governance and questions the efficacy of externally prescribed “good governance.” The study’s purpose is to articulate a Thai-rooted general theory of good governance and political change and to contrast it with western assumptions, using a comparative historical sociology approach.

The article engages mid-20th-century development thought contrasting Anglo-American modernization theory with Soviet/Chinese Marxist historical materialism. It discusses critiques of Eurocentrism and later post-colonial resonances, relating Kukrit’s ideas to Weber’s cultural-institutional analysis (Protestant Ethic), Bourdieu’s habitus, and Herzfeld’s cautions about exceptionalism and taxonomic reductionism. A central interlocutor is Jit Phoumisak’s The Real Face of Thai Saktina (1957), which analogized Thai sakdina to European feudalism; Reynolds and Lysa’s analyses of Marxism in Thai historiography are referenced. The paper also connects to Scott’s work on “zones of refuge,” Boserup on population and agrarian change, and Southeast Asian bondage systems (Reid), situating Kukrit within comparative-historical and post-/crypto-colonial debates. Discussions of Thai conservative nationalism and “Thainess” (Saichon Sattayanurak; Larsson; Connors) provide context for interpreting Kukrit’s broader intellectual positioning.

The study is a textual analysis of Kukrit’s Farang Sakdina, reading the Thai text closely to reconstruct its theoretical claims. It employs comparative historical sociology, juxtaposing English feudal development (pre-Roman to Norman conquest, Magna Carta, manorial courts, land tenure and inheritance) with Thai sakdina (Ayutthaya reforms from 1454, centralized kingship, personal loyalty, non-perpetual landholding). The author triangulates Kukrit’s interpretations with secondary scholarly literature (Weber, Bourdieu, Scott, Boserup, Reynolds, Baker & Pasuk, etc.). No original empirical data or human subjects were collected; some translations were produced by the author and students. The analysis aims to identify the institutional logics, contradictions, and cultural predispositions (habitus/karma) embedded in each system and their implications for modern governance.

- Kukrit distinguishes European feudalism (land-scarcity, serfdom tied to land, nobles creating and constraining the king; Magna Carta 1215) from Thai sakdina (land abundance, labor scarcity, personal attachment to nobles/king, centralized appointment and dismissal by the king, non-perpetual land rights reverting to the crown). - The means of power and production differed: in England, land and heritable rights; in Thailand, followers and proximity to the center. - Enduring cultural predispositions (habitus) and Buddhist-inflected dialectics (karma) reproduce historical contradictions, shaping modern institutions long after formal systems end (England roughly 1066–1789; Thailand roughly 1454–1932). - “Zones of refuge” in Thailand’s sparsely populated highlands historically enabled peasants to escape onerous obligations, weakening centralized control compared with England’s island context. - Western “good governance” and modernization prescriptions, derived from European histories, poorly fit Thai trajectories; persistent tensions in Thailand center on monarchy, democracy, and the military, with the military retaining institutional centrality (e.g., 2018 Constitution). - Contemporary Thai political culture still reflects sakdina-derived hierarchies (deference rituals, centralized governance, weaker individualized property rights relative to Anglo-American contexts). The term “sakdina” re-emerged in 2020 protests to critique enduring hierarchical habits. - Kukrit’s framework anticipates post-colonial critiques: locally grounded theories are needed to understand and reform governance in Thailand; equating sakdina with European feudalism obscures crucial differences.

The findings address the research question by showing that Thailand’s political development cannot be adequately explained by models derived from European feudalism or Marxist stages. Kukrit’s dialectical, Buddhist-inflected theory foregrounds systemic contradictions rooted in social ecology and cultural habitus, explaining why imported democratic and good-governance templates have repeatedly failed to produce stable outcomes. England’s path produced decentralized, land-centered institutions and a limited monarchy, while Thailand’s sakdina produced centralized kingship and personal loyalty networks—legacies that continue to structure political tensions among monarchy, democracy, and the military. Recognizing these distinct historical logics reframes assessments of Thai governance and suggests that reforms must align with local habitus and institutional residues rather than assume universal applicability of Western-derived prescriptions.

Farang Sakdina articulates a Thai Buddhist dialectical account of political change that critiques Eurocentric development and Marxist schemas. By demonstrating how differing historical ecologies and institutional logics in England and Thailand generated durable habitus, Kukrit provides an early contribution resonant with post-colonial theory. The paper concludes that effective understandings of Thai governance—and reform efforts labeled as “good governance”—must be grounded in Thailand’s own historical contradictions and cultural predispositions, not borrowed templates. Kukrit’s insights, echoed in contemporary political events and discourse, offer a framework for analyzing how past institutional residues shape present democratic possibilities.

The study is a conceptual and textual analysis centered on one author’s work (Kukrit) and comparative historical interpretation; it does not present new empirical data or systematic quantitative/qualitative field evidence. Generalizability is constrained by reliance on historical texts and secondary literature, and by the interpretive nature of translating and contextualizing Thai-language sources.