本文通过论述一个泰国北部老挝人村200年来迁徙进入泰国并融入泰国民族国家和主权国家建构的历史和文化过程，尝试探讨泰国国家形态中一种被忽略的形态——达摩政体。达摩政体是泰国内生的传统政体，是历经近千年积淀下来的泰国文化治理形态，也是一种将“佛王”政体和百姓日常生活上下贯通的道德精神共同体。达摩政体的国家形态与近代西方传入的现代国家政体形态形成了泰国国家政体的二重结构，在当代国家依然有强大的生命力，并体现在泰国国家治理的宗教、王权、族群、经济等诸多方面。达摩政体试图挑战既有关于东南亚国家形态的理论观点。既有理论或从“权力中心/边缘”视角出发，如“曼荼罗”政体和“星云政体”理论，忽视了民间社会和国家内在的文化治理逻辑；或从西方“现代国家”视角出发，如“殖民主义”与现代民族国家建构理论、“民主政体”等，以现代化进程的单线进化论思维看待泰国，低估了泰国本土传统文化在现代国家的生命力和影响力。“达摩政体”可以为我们观察泰国政体提供一个新的视角，丰富现有的国家理论的讨论。本文首先将介绍班莱县老挝人流动迁徙进入泰国国土之内定居的历史和地理迁徙背景，然后分四章分别论述达摩政体在“大泰”民族主义思想、宗教信仰、经济伦理、非物质文化遗产保护实践当中是如何体现的。首先，“大泰”民族主义不区分族群、将所有人统称为“泰”的民族主义政策塑造了超越族群认同的精神共同体，同时在现代国家延续了对达摩政体“佛王”的国家核心文化认同；其次，佛教作为“国教”一般的存在正是达摩政体传统神权延续的直接体现，班莱县本土信仰与佛教和谐共存体现了国家和地方多元一体的宗教生态；第三，“适足经济”的佛教经济哲学伦理体现了达摩政体“佛王合一”的文化内核，通过村落集体项目的落地，“适足经济”理念贯通上下，串联起一个道德经济共同体；第四，在“非物质文化遗产”保护实践中，国家通过非物质文化遗产进行文化治理，民间也通过佬族自身文化发掘和促进自己的文化共同体，体现了一种上下贯通和互补的治理形态。
Through a research on the historical and cultural process of a group of Lao villagers in northern Thailand migrating into Thai state and integrating into the construction of Thai nation-state and sovereign state in the past 200 years, this paper attempts to explore a neglected form of Thai state—Dharma polity. The Dharma polity is an endogenous traditional polity in Thailand. It is a form of Thai cultural governance that has been accumulated for thousands of years. It is also a moral and spiritual community that connects the “Budda-King” polity with the daily life of the common people. The Dharma polity and the modern nation-state polity introduced from the West in modern times compose the dual structure of the Thai state polity, which still has strong vitality in contemporary Thailand and is reflected in many aspects of Thailand's state governance, such as religion, royal power, ethnic groups, economy and so on.The Dharma polity attempts to challenge some existing theoretical views on the polity of Southeast Asian countries. The existing theories either from the perspective of power, such as the “Mandala polity” and the “galactic polity” theories, neglect the inherent logic of cultural governance of the country; or from the perspective of modern states, such as “colonialism” and modern nation-state construction theory, “democratic polity” and so on, regard Thailand as in a modernization process with a single-line evolutionary view, which underestimate the vitality and influence of Thai traditional culture in the modern country. The “Dharma polity” can offer us a new perspective on the Thai polity and enrich the discussion of existing state theories.This paper will first introduce the history and geographical background of the migration of Lao people in Amphoe Ban Rai to settle in Thailand. Then it will divide into four chapters to discuss how the dharma polity is reflected in the practice of Thai nationalist ideology, religious belief, economic ethics, and intangible cultural heritage protection. Firstly, the “Great Thai” nationalism which does not distinguish between ethnic groups and collectively calls everyone as “Thai”, has shaped a spiritual community that transcends ethnic identity, and at the same time continues to intensify the national core cultural identity of the “Buddha King/ dharmaraja” in Dharma polity in modern state; secondly, the general existence of Buddhism as an actual “state religion” is a direct reflection of the continuation of the traditional divine power in the Dharma polity, and the harmonious coexistence of local beliefs and Buddhism in Amphoe Ban Rai reflects the religious ecology of unity in diversity both in national and local levels; thirdly, the sufficiency economy philosophy embodies “the unity of Buddha and king”, the cultural core of the Dharma polity, and a moral economic community is formed by the concept of “sufficiency economy” through the implementation of village collective projects, which connect top and down; fourthly, in the practice of the protection of the “intangible cultural heritage”, the state carries out cultural governance through the intangible cultural heritage, and the local people also excavates and promotes their own cultural community through the Lao nationality's own culture, which reflects a form of governance that connects up and down and complements each other.
