The Politics of Mourning: When the State Enforces Grief as a National Agenda

The passing of Her Majesty Queen Sirikit, the Queen Mother (on 24 October 2025), marked the end of an era of image-building for the monarchy under the Cold War context. The government officially declared a period of mourning, but what warrants scrutiny is the response that exceeded the bounds of a “mourning ritual,” turning grief into a year-long national mandate. Civil servants were required to mourn throughout the year, and all celebratory activities in educational institutions were suspended. This reflects a distorted interpretation of “loyalty” and an unreasonable intrusion of state power into the private lives of citizens.

Compared to the death of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, which involved only a ten-day mourning period with a focus on security management, Thailand chose to “freeze” society for an entire year. This use of ritual as a political tool was more about legitimizing the government than demonstrating respect for the monarchy. The consequences were severe and complex, affecting both youth, who were cut off from extracurricular activities essential for social and emotional development, and small business owners in the entertainment, service, and creative industries, who lost income for the entire year. The state-mandated mourning thus became a factor contributing to an “economic freeze” rather than providing solace to the public.

Even more concerning was the emergence of a “witch-hunt mechanism” online, after certain conservative leaders declared they would target those perceived as “improper” or “seeking personal gain” from the passing. Such persecution does not honour the monarchy but reinforces the use of “loyalty” as a tool for thought control. Citizens who simply did not wear black or continued their normal lives were condemned, threatened, and publicly stigmatized. Mourning was transformed into a “loyalty test,” compelling people to display emotions according to state and societal expectations.

Moreover, this witch-hunt phenomenon involved the use of Section 112 of the Criminal Code as a legal instrument to punish those perceived as “not mourning appropriately” or “disloyal,” expanding the law to regulate emotions rather than protect the institution. This is not unprecedented; a similar wave occurred during the death of King Bhumibol Adulyadej in 2016, when some citizens were arrested or harassed merely for not participating in mourning or expressing themselves in ways that diverged from the state’s and radical royalists’ norms.

These occurrences reflect a political culture that does not tolerate emotional or intellectual diversity. Mourning, which should be a private space for grief and remembrance, became a testing ground for loyalty. Reasoned critique was interpreted as “disrespect,” and silence was deemed “disloyal.” This is a condition in which society loses psychological freedom and replaces it with surveillance and self-policing.

To break out of such a “witch-hunt” cycle, Thai society needs to build three cultural immunities. First, instil “emotional maturity in citizens” to understand that mourning can take many forms, none superior to another. Second, strengthen the “political maturity of the state” to recognize that respect for the monarchy cannot be commanded but must arise voluntarily and from understanding. Third, cultivate a “culture of dignified disagreement” so that debate or non-participation in mourning is not seen as a threat to the nation.

The state and society must accept that true loyalty cannot be coerced, and that allowing citizens the freedom to mourn in their own way gives meaning to respect. Ending the use of social media as an ideological threat and promoting mindful spaces for dialogue are the first steps toward a more compassionate and mature society.

The state’s extreme measures to restrict social and economic activities under the mourning agenda reveal a failure to distinguish between “official rituals” and “personal freedom.” Mourning should not be an excuse to halt development or limit civil rights; it should be a voluntary, dignified space for remembrance. A government that enforces the emotions of its citizens undermines its own credibility and erodes the relationship between the people and the monarchy, which should be based on respect rather than fear.

While royal households around the world conduct ceremonies with elegance but brevity—such as in the Netherlands, Spain, or Japan, where mourning lasts only days to months—Thailand chose the opposite path. Long-term suspension of economic and social activities is not only economically irresponsible but also opens the door to ideological division under the guise of “appropriateness.” True loyalty cannot be coerced but must arise from voluntary acceptance. Excessive mourning time does not honour the deceased but reveals insecurities about the stability of the institution and the government itself.

Leading the country beyond “ritual obsession” and restoring society under human rights and reason is the only way to maintain respect for the monarchy with dignity and allow citizens to participate in mourning meaningfully and voluntarily.

Banner image: Portrait of Her Majesty Queen Sirikit in Thai Boromphiman costume. Portrait from Thailand Banknotes. Prachaya Roekdeethaweesab, Shutterstock