His Majesty's moral authority was reinforced by his judicious interventions to put an end to widening political bloodshed. Two of the most crucial of those times occurred in 1973 and 1991.

The 1973 uprising grew out of public frustration over the government's slow pace in effecting democratic reforms. The government's arrest of 13 activists led to street demonstrations demanding their release and calls for the swift enactment of a new constitution. The confrontations led to armed repression by the authorities who pushed the demonstrators towards the Palace. Realising that the protestors were being injured, His Majesty ordered the gates opened so they could seek shelter. Clashes between protesters and soldiers/police escalated leading to the fleeing of the country by some government leaders. Recognizing the need to re-establish order, His Majesty appointed a respected university rector, countersigned by the Acting House Speaker, to head an interim government and peace was restored.

In 1992, a group of senior military officers seized power, threatening the country’s fledging democracy. The following year, the winning party in parliamentary elections invited one of the coup plotters to become Prime Minister. The move sparked dissent among the public, which felt that democratic principles were being undermined. Large crowds took to the streets to demand the Prime Minister's resignation. The army attempted to suppress the protest resulting in many deaths.

To avoid further bloodshed, His Majesty invited the two leaders of the opposing sides to Chitralada Villa. In a televised meeting, he enjoined them to think of the country and to take the necessary steps to resolve the situation. His actual words were "there has been an unfathomable loss of public confidence and morale, as well as of credibility in the nation's economy. Can there ever be a winner? Of course not. It is so very dangerous. There will only be a loser. Each side in the confrontation is a loser." *

Through these interventions, the King did not involve himself in the political problems, which should be and were resolved through political mechanisms. Rather, he stopped bloodshed among Thais when state machinery had failed to do so.

More recently, concerning Thailand's current political situation resulting from the House dissolution on 24 February 2006 and the General Elections on 2 April 2006,
His Majesty, in an address to the Administrative Court judges on 25 April 2005, clarified his role within the constitutional monarchy and provided clear direction for the courts on their responsibility in resolving the issue. Noting whether the situation was relevant to the judges, His Majesty said: “In fact, it should be. The issue of sole candidacy election is important because they will never fulfill the quorum. If the House is not filled by elected candidates, then democracy cannot function. If this is the case, the oaths you have just sworn in would be invalid. That is why everything must be done to enable democracy to move forward. …” Then he asked them “not to neglect democracy – a governing system that enables the country to function.” *

Also, in an address to the Supreme Court judges, His Majesty said: "Now, there was an election in order to ensure democracy. But if Parliament lacks a quorum, it is not democratic. … Please consult with one another and with other courts as well. It will help the country be governed by democratic rule. Do not wait for a royally conferred Prime Minister because that would not be democracy." *

Regarding public calls for a royally conferred prime minister, His Majesty said: “Article 7 does not empower the King to make a unilateral decision. It talks about the constitutional monarchy but does not give the King power to do anything he wishes. If the King did so, he would overstep his duty. I have never overstepped this duty. Doing so would be undemocratic. … Installing a royally conferred prime minister means appointing a prime minister without regard for any rules.” *

* Unofficial translation