To the casual observer, the Southern Thai conflict looks like a classic case of autonomy waiting to happen. A minority population is conveniently located close to one of the country's borders; and assimilation policies have been incompletely successful, leaving residues of bitterness, resentment and violence. Rather than continue to run the minority region from Bangkok, why not simply give the Malay Muslims of the far South some form of autonomy? Why would a solution that seems to have “worked” (or at least to have reduced violence and improved matters greatly) in comparable conflicts ranging from Northern Ireland to Aceh not be worth exploring in the context of Southern Thailand? Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple.

Thailand's national identity, summarized in the ubiquitous shibboleth “Nation, Religion, King”, is predicated upon a set of national myths about the country's origins. These include a belief that Siam was never colonized; that colonization was averted through the genius of King Chulalongkorn and the Chakri dynasty; and that Siam successfully adopted various features of a modern western nation, in order to demonstrate a high level of “civilization” that would provide a vaccine against colonization. The models adopted by Siam were those of the two dominant colonial powers in Southeast Asia, Britain and France, both unitary states. In expanding Bangkok's territorial reach to include Lao, Khmer and Malay populations, Siam consistently favoured assimilation and centralization over federalist alternatives. Over time, traditional rulers were replaced by career bureaucrats appointed from Bangkok, in a process often dubbed “internal colonialism”.

While leading civilian statesman Pridi Phanomyong did advance alternative ideas for governing Thailand (as the nation became) during the period following the 1932 end of absolute monarchy, by the 1950s Pridi was in exile, and the Chakri dynasty was once more in the ascendant. The long reign of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (since 1946) has seen the collapse of the communist threat in Thailand, remarkable economic growth, and the emergence of a more democratic politics. For most Thais, King Bhumibol deserves immense personal credit for guiding Thailand through an extraordinary period of transformation.