Statehood

Statehood

From the intro to AW's Identity
​

"It was perhaps in the 20th Century B.C.E. that the Siamese obsession with vast public projects, serving no imperative purpose, began. Two projects, the Great Library of Sukhothai and the Parthenon, were built in this century and quickly became the destination of the cultural and political elites of not just Siam, but also the nobles of the English and Swedes, and the prominent political figures of the Koreans and Persians.
​

"The Great Library was the first of these projects and provided the fuel necessary for the second to be born. The Great Library served a few purposes at the time of its construction. Construction of this behemoth began to satisfy the people and the demand they had for jobs. The creation of the Library was a monstrous task which would require the support and cooperation of the lumber and construction industries, the academia, and the few civil servants, however this was facilitated by the State for a speedy outcome. The second purpose, of course, was to distinguish the Siamese people from the people hailing from other nations or tribes. It was assumed that a great center of learning and a structure of this stature would be the envy of the world and would display the superiority of the Siamese.​

"The Great Library certainly was successful in supplying the workforce with jobs and enhancing the ability of the academia, but it also led to a very interesting man: Viên Nam. He was the greatest engineer who Siam had ever seen, some argue the greatest Siam would ever see. He was present during the construction of the Great Library and certainly learned from the experience. Shortly after the completion he and his acquaintances, who found one another by similar fascination with the Great Library, started drafting a plan for the most grandiose temple the world would ever see: The Parthenon.
​

"The Parthenon would be a display of Siamese art, literature, and drama. The Great Library brought a new wave of literature to Siam. part of the new wave was Drama and Poetry. These were new forms of literature, ones that strayed from the prose that had been dominant in pre-Wonder Siam. The Parthenon would become the second great Cultural Center of Siam, a shrine to the Siamese people. Out of this, the idea of a national identity, a unified, distinct, and, in their eyes, superior State, under which all Siamese would live and be protected...would be born..."
​

"Just as gravity tends to draw objects inward, States tend to draw other States inward."

War and conquest is always somewhat an awkward conversation to have, though it is particularly awkward for the Siamese. Seldom would any Siamese citizen advocate for the baseless acquisition of territory, at least not openly. However, still the Persian and Swedish states lay subjugated by the Siamese, the cities of Helsinki, Nottingham, and Persepolis all remain within Siam, despite their populaces being the minority nationwide, and the Siamese Espionage Agency continues to install favorable candidates in lesser states. With this in mind, how could any conversation of such a topic be remedied?
The most common justification used is the argument that Siam has only ever warred with nations that had already attacked them. While this is true, it is misleading.
The main targets of the Siamese, most of whom now maintain near no sovereignty, were all their immediate neighbors. Given the proximity and the geography of Siam's home continent, conflict was inevitable. So it is true the English, Persians, and Swedish all attacked Siam first, but this is only because of the methodical nature of the Siamese: had they not, the Siamese would have, eventually.
Also, this excuse does not excuse the foreign policy currently being pursued by the Siamese. No lesser state has ever attacked the Siamese nor interfered with them in any any, shape, or form. Nevertheless, the SEA continues to interfere in the political systems and meddle in the democracies of nations not only across its acronym, but across the Southern Mountains, despite firm Siamese control. This distinct lack of respect for the inalienable right to self-determination is inexcusable by any claim to self-defense.
There also seems to be a misconception that because the Siamese government has elements of democracy, that it can do no wrong and it speaks in the name of freedom. Do not be deceived nor illusioned. The Siamese government has pursued democratic structure with the aim of reaping the most benefit from its distinguished citizens. Still, a monarch rules over Siam. Constitutionally constrained? Yes. Bureaucratically bound? Yes. But still this figure preside over Siam with the power to instigate war and historically they have radiated the spirit of conquest.
To conclude, these conquests may not be remedied nor excused, but the abolition of the monarchy could pave the path to a peaceful land of prosperity.
​

"It is man's social being that determines his thinking. Once the correct ideas characteristic of the advanced class are grasped by the masses, these ideas turn into a material force which changes society and changes the world."
-Mao Tse Tung​

"...and so it is today that I willfully and trufully relinquish my power to the people. It is no secret that the authority of the Crown has been waning since the rise of the bureaucracy. I have been witness to a plethora of eager, ambitious young men. However, it is not my audience they seek. No, it is the audience and approval of the recruiters for the Departments of Commerce, Diplomacy, Culture, and Design that they seek. To even call myself a King with a Crown seems all too presumptuous...egotistic in fact.

So I hope it is with honor that I step down and relinquish what authority I have remaining. I do this not out of spite, not out of a sense of duty, not in hopes of a normal life. I do this, because it is evident this office is no longer in tune with the people.

But what do I mean by this? Well this office is an ancient office. Indeed this office was founded for the Siamese people, who thought that a King who would preside over all of Siam would be best in keeping the tradition of the people alive. Many, particularly many in the most recent generation, have difficulties believing that the Siamese had been so conservative, so traditional. In this time of turmoil over how Siam should be run, this new generation gawk and gape at those who came before them. They denounce them as reactionary autocrats.

I cannot deny that I find this speech somewhat humorous. Not to characterize our future citizens and lawmakers as naive nor ignorant, just perhaps somewhat shortsighted, perhaps uneducated. For, as history shows, we grow ever more liberal, more radical, more anxious for change. From our roots as a solemn, deliberate people, we have blossomed into a people who not only respect our ancestors, but a people who have an eye for our neighbors, a people who remain frugal, a people who admire our cultural achievements, and, most recently, a people who know individualism and desire autonomy.

Every generation we make steps, make strides, make bounds, make leaps. But I am well aware no King can faithfully follow. The people push the frontier ever further, at a rate no one man could ever follow. No single man could ever hope to appreciate or share the culture that encompasses the people. This is not his fault; it is simply impossible. As such, I have come to the conclusion no one man may govern Siam.

Thus, I declare that I shall be the last king of Siam. I place the future of Siam into the people of Siam, and I know you shall not disappoint..."
​

"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
-Oscar Wilde

...now we have already established that for any autonomous region to achieve Statehood, they must have their own architectural achievements, their own military accomplishments, and their own definitive culture. These 3 aspects all lead to one necessity. It is not a beloved necessity, nor one that any State aspires to have, but one all obtain regardless. This aspect is a bureaucracy.

To carry out the construction of wonders, to carry out an effective military, and to promote social progress, a bureaucracy naturally emerges.No single office, and unitarianism certainly is the obvious and primary form of government, could ever carry out such large projects single-handedly, and as a state grows, as they tend to do, an authority must focus on the big picture. Thus, tasks must be delegated. As tasks taken on by the state grow in number or stature, the bureaucracy follows. Therefore, a large bureaucracy is a feature of any true state.

Especially recently, the term bureaucracy carries a considerably harsh connotation. This is mainly due to the assumption, not always unwarranted, that bureaucracies are slow, ineffective, ill-equipped, and, in some states, undemocratic. Now because bureaucracies implement laws and programs they are assigned, they have a certain influence in policymaking. However, no serious concerns are ever expressed because bureaus and agencies tend to be heavily constrained, slow, and cumbersome due political factors and interactions and regulations between agencies. Thus, complaints are all that bureaucracies will ever face, for no state can exist without bureaucracy.

In addition, citizens tend to like social programs, despite dismay of the bureaucracy they tend to have. Social programs have dominated the agendas of all modern states because of their popularity among citizens and the obvious benefits for the constituents of the enactors of such programs. Therefore, democratic governments especially trend towards social programs and thus bureaucracy. Through social programs the government inspires and uplifts its citizens to their highest statures, which, I would argue, is the ultimate purpose of government.
​