At 87 years old, Thailand's constitutional monarchy is not among the world's oldest nor has it been the most robust. Still, it has beaten the odds and remained our system of governance.
It may have faltered under a dozen or so military coups. It has also been localised and modified to suit the immediate needs of the powers-that-be, at times so radically it could have been mistaken as something other than democracy.
Still, it stays. So why is there so much fear that our constitutional monarchy will be overthrown?
Evidence that worries about the country's governance system have gone wild is none other than the petition to dissolve the Future Forward Party (FFP) because it allegedly harbours links with the Illuminati secret society.
Among the accusations is that if the FFP's logo -- an upside-down triangle -- is reversed, it would look similar to the triangular sign of the secret society probably best known from Dan Brown's best-seller The Da Vinci Code.
The petitioner claimed that several key FFP members have expressed ideas that reflect the practices of the Illuminati including discouraging the act of prostrating oneself to pay respects or criticising the famous "Thai smile".
He also alluded to the fact that since the Illuminati was believed to be behind plots to overthrow monarchies in Europe, the FFP is therefore a threat to the constitutional monarchy.
The Constitutional Court accepted the petition for consideration. It also released a statement warning people to be wary of contempt of court after the FFP released a video clip on its Facebook page denying the accusations.
The clip was widely shared and commented on with thousands of people expressing a range of emotions from disbelief to disdain towards the apparently bizarre accusations.
The problem, however, is they are real. No matter how ridiculous or otherworldly these allegations may appear, they are valid charges recognised and punishable in a court of law.
A handful of political parties including some that were viewed as challenging the establishment have been disbanded under this charge, their members stigmatised by a highly sensitive anti-monarchy label.
It's ominous to hear people talking about the latest case against the FFP as this is inevitable, something that is bound to happen, not because the party has done anything wrong but because it is perceived as a challenge to the existing order.
It's ominous because it means people have come to accept powers that are above the law, forces that lurk in the dark that may coerce, abuse, terrorise or do anything at will to ensure that their sides will stay in control.
Should we ask ourselves, if the FFP could be punished for alleged links with an Illuminati whose existence has never been proven, would it be contempt of our intellect?
More importantly, who might be next? Will it also happen to us eventually?
The problem when the law, and by association a sense of justice and discernment of what is fair, is disregarded for the sake of expediency, whether political or security-related, is that tension and feelings of alienation build up, counterweighing whatever control has been put in place.
When one side can act above the law, or social conventions for that matter, it becomes increasingly difficult to apply the same law to the rest of the population. Hypocrisy is a precursor to resentment which more often than not will be followed by rebellion.
As long as military coups are still recognised by the law, albeit retrospectively, and coup makers can enjoy an omnipotent status that allows them to be state officials, non-state personnel, prime minister or anything they like, is it absurd to continue prosecuting political parties or people for overthrowing the constitutional monarchy?
The truth is that there has never been a successful attempt to overthrow the governance system without cooperation from the military, not even the one and only revolution in Thai history in 1932. Instead of targeting political parties and individuals, shouldn't this charge be focused more on the armed forces and military men?
Even if political parties were to be free to campaign for a change in the regime of governance, it would not be that easy. So this charge ends up being seen as a trumped-up one, used to outmanoeuvre political opponents more than to protect the democratic regime of constitutional monarchy.
Indeed, constitutional monarchy can't even be protected. The system has stayed because for better or worse it is preferred by a majority of people. It may have flaws but it still corresponds to people's yearnings and needs. It may evolve but it has to have these connections with the people. Or it will crumble by itself, from within.
Atiya Achakulwisut is a Bangkok Post columnist.