(Radical) pacifism and governmental force (army, police, etc.)

I think you said you wanted an example of an instance when pacifism prevailed (and that you're less interested in answers which cite other examples of pacifism not prevailing).

Perhaps the following might count as one example.

Bhumibol Adulyadej -- Crisis of 1992

In 1992, Bhumibol played a key role in Thailand's transition to a democratic system. A coup on 23 February 1991 returned Thailand back under military dictatorship. After a general election in 1992, the majority parties invited General Suchinda Kraprayoon, a leader of the coup group, to be the Prime Minister. This caused much dissent, which escalated into demonstrations that led to a large number of deaths when the military was brought in to control the protesters. The situation became increasingly critical as police and military forces clashed with the protesters. Violence and riots spread out in many areas of the capital with rumours of a rift among the armed forces.

Amidst the fear of civil war, Bhumibol intervened. He summoned Suchinda and the leader of the pro-democracy movement, retired Major General Chamlong Srimuang, to a televised audience, and urged them to find a peaceful resolution. At the height of the crisis, the sight of both men appearing together on their knees (in accordance with royal protocol) made a strong impression on the nation, and led to Suchinda's resignation soon afterwards.

It was one of the few occasions in which Bhumibol directly and publicly intervened in a political conflict. A general election was held shortly afterward, leading to a civilian government.

Black May (1992) -- Royal intervention

Early on the morning of 20 May, the very popular Princess Sirindhorn addressed the country on television, calling for a stop to the violence. Her appeal was rebroadcast throughout the day. That evening, her brother, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, broadcast a similar appeal.

Finally, at 9:30 pm, a television broadcast of King Bhumibol Adulyadej, Suchinda, and Chamlong was shown, in which the King demanded that the two men put an end to their confrontation and work together through parliamentary procedures. During the broadcast, the King addressed the two generals:

"The Nation belongs to everyone, not one or two specific people. The problems exist because we don't talk to each other and resolve them together. The problems arise from 'bloodthirstiness'. People can lose their minds when they resort to violence. Eventually, they don't know why they fight each other and what the problems they need to resolve are. They merely know that they must overcome each other and they must be the only winner. This no way leads to victory, but only danger. There will only be losers, only the losers. Those who confront each other will all be the losers. And the loser of the losers will be the Nation. ... For what purpose are you telling yourself that you're the winner when you're standing upon the ruins and debris?".

Suchinda then released Chamlong and announced an amnesty for protesters. He also agreed to support an amendment requiring the prime minister to be elected. Chamlong asked the demonstrators to disperse, which they did. On 24 May 1992, Suchinda resigned as Prime Minister of Thailand.

The king's speech might be fairly explicitly Buddhist: warning people against the risk of "losing their minds" isn't something I'd expect to hear from a non-Buddhist leader, even during a speech against violence.

Since your question arose after reading the article, I guess it is essential to point out some misrepresentations in it.

First of all, the premise of this secular article is entirely false. Asaram Bapu is a Hindu self-styled Godman, who himself is jailed on charges of child molestation. The details of his case can be accessed here Asaram Child Abuse. Second, the idea that, and I am paraphrasing the author, Indians are joining similar violence prevention courses over the advice of religious opponents who echo Buddha, is entirely author's misconstrued imagination with no basis in reality. Buddha never figured in the contemporary discussion on sexual abuse in India post the December 2012 gangrape.

Third, the Buddhist society in general can be divided in 4 different categories:

a. Bhikkhu (Male Monks)

b. Bhikkhuni (Female Monks)

c. Upasak (Lay Male Follower)

d. Upasika (Lay Female Follower)

The 'Kakacupama Sutta' mentioned in the article is addressed to the monks who have renounced lay life and are determined and dedicated to the path of enlightenment. Its quotation is out of context.

It is important to note that Buddha never discouraged Kings (Govts in the modern context) from keeping a standing army. In fact, he even gave advice to the Licchavis on how to well defend their republic.

A detailed explanation of the role of King and the Soldier in the society and their importance is given here: Role of the Soldier with proper references of the relevant Suttas.

From the above link, it is quite clear that the idea of Radical Pacifism as 'You may not hurt others, even if you're "being rendered limb from limb".' is not what Buddha taught in the context of Kings and Soldiers. This was a teaching given to monks.

This might be a little off-topic but it is important to understand that in Buddhism, a lot of emphasis is put on meditation. The Dhamma says 'Ehipassiko' - i.e. come and see for yourself. So, on a personal level, if a soldier comes to realize the effects of his livelihood on the experiential level, he is welcome to become a monk. But while being a soldier, if he is practicing the teachings of monks, then he is harming himself and he will harm the nation. Buddha gave the Noble Eightfold Path to come out of suffering.

Now coming to:

'•In countries like Cambodia (97% Buddhists) and Thailand (93% Buddhists) does radical pacifism have any consequences at all at the government level?

•Or is (radical) pacifism just an insignificant minority position in Buddhism? '

Now, since, Buddha never taught Radical Pacifism to Kings and Soldiers, I think the question is a non-issue. Also, even if the majority of population is Buddhist doesn't mean the state is Buddhist. In Cambodia, during the Cambodian Genocide, religion was banned and there was repression of even the Buddhists. Even during the rule of Mao in China, religion was heavily repressed. Japan had a pacifist constitution for a while before Abe but that was inspired by the second world war. I think a better question would be impact of Buddhism on general governance in different countries.

I think this would take a political scientist to answer but I'll try to give a few thoughts on this.

I listened to a podcast a while ago where Owen Flanagan was arguing that Buddhism was ill suited to form part of any political philosophy. Whereas a country may be Buddhist from a democratic perspective when it comes to the political sphere that country will operate with a different political philosophy such as monarchy, oligarchy etc... So whether a Buddhist does or doesn't subscribe to radical pacifism would be irrelevant in Buddhist countries as the political philosophy isn't actual based on Buddhism. I'm not agreeing or diagreeing with this - my knowledge of global political structures isn't strong enough to support that stance. However it was an interesting assertion and relevant here I think.

Also for many people the Dalai Lama is the Buddhist political leader that they are most familiar with and his attitude to political force is complex. For instance he has given messages of support to the armed forces - while that not directly advocating violence it isn't radical pacifism either.

In short although I do think that radical pacifism is a valid Buddhist position I don't believe it is a position that political figures hold whether in Buddhist countries or being Buddhist themselves. Very happy to be proved wrong on this of course.

Nations with Buddhism as a major religion are seldom pacifist. Take for example: Sri Lanka, Burma, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Japan, Nepal, or China. None of these governments practice pacifism now, nor to my known have they ever in the past. Some of them are now run by military dictatorships and are characterised by authoritarian regimes which treat their people harshly.

Some smaller countries like Bhutan are quite peaceful in the sense of not being involved in wars, but Bhutan is currently persecuting Nepalese migrants, who themselves fled civil war in Nepal. The history of Buddhist Tibet is quite bloody at government level, despite the current pacifism of their leader in exile the Dalai lama.

I would say that if radical pacifism exists it is at the level of individuals and never at the level of governments. Where Buddhist monastics have engaged in politics, as they are in Tibet and Sri Lanka currently, it has tended to corrupt them.

In your comment above you question whether people vote against their conscience. Another feature of Buddhist countries is totalitarianism. Very few Buddhists have had the possibility of voting in the past. In the countries that are democratic no pacifist party has ever won power so far as I know. But if they did it is likely, until very recently, that a neighbouring country would simply invade and conquer them and replace the pacifist govt.

A nation state is an entity created and sustained by violence or at the very least the threat of it. So in a sense the idea of a pacifist nation state it a contradiction in terms. One of the few examples of this comes not from Buddhism, but from the state within a state that is the Amish community in the USA. Again, not a democracy but a religious oligarchy (a hierarchy in the true sense of the word). Ironically the right to freedom of religion that many of us enjoy was won, and is sustained, by the threat of violence against those would would deny the right. And again in history most Buddhist countries did not have freedom of religion.

It is a rather complex question, and history is full of counterexamples, but I think this broad overview covers the facts.