Va-PoReg Country Report Laos 1900–2025

Before falling under French rule, Laos experienced only two brief periods (around 1350-1415 and 1637-1694) of consolidated independent statehood under the Kingdom of Lan Xang (Smith 1963). As such the territory occupied by the French did not constitute a state. By the treaty of 10/03/1893 the Lao territories were divided into French Laos (east of the Mekong) and Siamese Laos to the west (Stuart-Fox 1995). In 1893, French Laos was divided into a protected Kingdom (Kingdom Luang Prabang) in the north and a directly administered territories in the south designated respectively Upper and Lower Laos (Stuart-Fox 1995). In 1893 Laos was incorporated as one of the five associated regions of Indochina, along with Cambodia and Tonkin, Annam and Cochinchina in Vietnam. In the north of Laos, the Kingdom of Luang Phrabang was incorporated as a protectorate, nominally under the rule of its King, but the actual power lay with French officials including the vice consulate and Resident-General. The royal families’ position in Luang Prabang was reduced to figureheads.¹ This resulted in an indirect governance approach in the north, while the central and southern regions were governed jointly as a colony until 1899, when Laos was consolidated into a single administrative entity (Evans 2002, Savada 1994a). The royal seat at Luang Phrabang was still seen as the official ruler of the province and a royal court still remained, but it held no actual power, and it was later to be consisted of French appointed officials. The remaining nine provinces were directly ruled under the French government in Vientiane, with each province having a resident governor and military post. To financially support the colonial government, taxes were introduced and imposed on the population.¹ On 06/05/1930 Laos was officially declared a designated French colony by the French Legislative Council (Savada 1994a). After large protests, in 1931 Luang Prabang was confirmed as a protectorate of France (Savada 1994a). Only on 08/29/1941 a Treaty of Protectorate between France and the Kingdom of Luang Prabang was signed to re-establish the monarchy, while further provinces were incorporated into Kingdom of Luang Phra Bang (Stuart-Fox 1995, Stuart-Fox 1986, Savada 1994a). In 1942, France acknowledged the King of Luang Prabang as the monarch of Laos in its entirety (Smith 1963). According to LIED only multiparty elections were held during this period. Universal suffrage was not achieved before 1956 (Smith 1963). LIED and V-Dem’s PCLI classify political liberties as absent. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE and LCE are both interpreted by us as indicating moderate constraints on the executive.

The time France was liberated under General Charles de Gaulle in 1944 Imperial Japanese troops were being largely defeated in the Pacific Front and in a last-minute attempt to draw support Japan dissolved French control over its Indochinese colonies in March 1945.¹ Subsequently, Laos entered a brief interregnum when Japanese forces occupied the country and ruled Laos for a period of six months. During this time, they forced a royal proclamation to end the French protectorate, imprisoned or executed French officials and their families and incited the rulers of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam to proclaim their countries’ independence (Pholsena 2006).² LIED lists universal suffrage as absent during this period. Laos was thus proclaimed independent on 04/08/1945 by King Sisavangvong under Japanese patronage (Pholsena 2006). For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE and LCE are both interpreted by us as indicating moderate constraints on the executive.

Although there was no direct confrontation between Allied and Japanese forces in Laos, we code this regime change event as a liberation by foreign forces, since the capitulation and subsequent retreat of Japan was enforced by the USA. After the capitulation of Japanese forces on 08/27/1945 and their formal surrender on 09/02/1945, a power struggle started between the King and the Viceroy, Prince Phetsarath on the future of the country. While the Laotian King Sisavangvong planned the return to the colony status under the French, Prince Phetsarath wanted independence for Laos along with the integration of all the country’s provinces (Pholsena 2006). In 09/1945 King Sisavangvong announced the union of Vientiane and Champasak with Luang Prabang to form a government that would include all Lao areas. Phetsarat to the contrary informed Laotian provincial governors that the Japanese surrender did not affect Laos status as independent and urged them to resist any foreign intervention. He also proclaimed unification with the country and the southern Lao provinces on 09/15/1945, that led to the King dismissing him from his post as prime minister and viceroy on 10/10/1945 and ultimately dismissed the dispute.³ In this power vacuum Laotian anticolonial nationalists, known as „Lao Issara” (Lao Freedom) formed a competitive provisional government led by Prince Phetsarat on 10/12/1945.⁴ On 04/23/1946 Sisavangvong was crowned King of Laos. According to LIED only multiparty legislative elections were held during this period. LIED identifies political liberties as absent, while V-Dem’s PCLI is classified by us as indicating that political liberties were not really present. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE and LCE are both interpreted by us as indicating moderate constraints on the executive.

French troops re-captured Vientiane from the Lao Issara on 04/24/1946 and largely regained control of the Laos on September 09/23/1946. The Lao Issara went into exile, running a government-in-exile from Bangkok. On 05/11/1946, France recognized the internal autonomy of Laos under King Sisavangvong. However, France retained control over key sovereign functions, including foreign affairs, defense, monetary policy, and major economic decisions. Laos remained part of the Union Française and did not achieve de facto independence. As a result, Laos transitioned into an indirect rule colonial regime under French authority rather than becoming a fully sovereign state. This status continued until 10/22/1953, when the Franco-Lao Treaty of 1953 formally granted Laos full sovereignty over internal governance, foreign policy, and defense. From 10/22/1953 onward, Laos is considered an independent state. .⁵ Multiparty-legislative elections for a constituent assembly in the Kingdom of Laos were held on 12/15/1946, with all candidates running as independents. ⁶ The Constituent Assembly was convened by the French colonial government on 03/15/1947, and a new constitution went into effect on 05/11/1947, declaring Laos a de jure constitutional monarchy (Kingdom of Laos) within the French Union. King Sisavangvong, as former king of Luang Prabang, became King of Laos and reigned through the Royal Lao Government (Pholsena 2006, Savada 1994a). Elections for the 35-member National Assembly were held on 08/24/1947. The National Assembly convened in Vientiane on 11/26/1947.⁴ On 07/19/1949 Laos was granted greater autonomy in the French Union. This satisfied the Lao Issara who dissolved the group on 10/24/1949⁴ and gradually returned to Laos under amnesty (Smith 1963). The agreement signed at the Franco-Lao General Convention gave Laos greater latitude in foreign affairs (Savada 1994a). Therefore, Laos was allowed to join the United Nations even though their foreign affairs and national defense was still controlled by France (Evans 2002: 92). Therefore, the protectorate status is continued because greater autonomy included only diplomatic representation at the UN but not the conduct of foreign affairs without consultation with the French. On 08/18/1951 the lower chamber of Parliament which were previously held on a non-partisan basis, for the first time saw political parties compete.⁷ The result was a victory for the National Progressive Party. The party’s leader, Souvanna Phouma, became prime minister.⁷ A government was formed under Souvanna Phouma on 11/21/1951.⁴ According to LIED only multiparty legislative elections were held during this period. In this period Laos is a multiparty autocracy without elected executive. In this data set it is coded as an autocratic monarchy semi-sovereign, external affairs under France because King Sisavangvong influences government appointments and France as foreign power dominates political decision-making. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s LCE is interpreted by us as indicating limited constraints on the executive. According to LIED political liberties were absent and according to V-Dem’s PCLI ambiguous.

The Franco-Lao Treaty of Amity and Association on 10/22/1953, removed the last limitations on independence and transferred remaining French prerogatives in Laotian external affairs to the Royal Lao Government (Savada 1994a). As the transfer was organized by the treaty, we code this regime change event as a negotiated transition. Yet, the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Laos acknowledged Laos as a neutral state but forbade it from establishing military alliances with other governments (Anthony/Sexton 1993). It additionally concurred that the entirety of Laos should be under the authority of the Royal Lao Government led by the King and should remain undivided. The agreements, however, did provide for two „regroupment zones” in provinces adjacent to what was then North Vietnam to allow the Pathet Lao forces to assemble. As a consequence, the Laotian communists effectively governed those regions, while the royal government retained control over the rest of the country.⁵ Legislative elections for the National Assembly were held in 12/1955.⁸ The French government provided military assistance to the royal government beginning in 01/1955.⁸ The USA provided economic and military assistance to the royal government beginning in 01/1955 The Parliament of the Kingdom of Laos was a bicameral legislature that consisted of the national Assembly, whose members were popularly elected, and the Royal Council, whose members were appointed by the King or elected by the National Assembly.⁹ Elections were exclusive to the lao ethnic group, despite large vietnamese populations. Female suffrage was introduced in 1958.¹⁰ On 10/29/1959 Sisavang Vatthana, the 6th prime minister of Laos and son of King Sisavangvong, was named regent and took over the throne. He was the last king of the Kingdom of Laos. He ruled until his forced abdication by the Phatet Lao in 1975. The Pathet Lao was a communist political movement and organization in Laos, formed in the mid-20th century, always closely associated with Vietnamese communists and North Vietnam.¹¹ However, he was never officially crowned king, deferring his coronation until the cessation of civil war. The king was active in politics as he was trying to stabilize Laos after the political turmoil started with the Geneva Conference of 07/1954, which granted full independence to the country but did not settle the issue of who would rule. As a result, the position of prime minister was disputed between three princes: Prince Souvanna Phouma, a neutralist based in Vientiane, who gained recognition from the Soviet Union. Prince Boun Oum, a right-wing figure from Champassak in the south, was acknowledged as Prime Minister by the US due to his pro-United States stance and control over the Pakse area. In the far north, Prince Souphanouvong led the leftist Pathet Lao resistance, with support from North Vietnam and the Communists. To avoid disputes over legitimacy, the pro-Western King Vatthana played a crucial role as the mediator.¹² According to LIED only multiparty legislative elections were held in 1953, from 1954 onward multiparty executive and legislative elections were held. In addition to that, political liberties are coded as absent per LIED and can be interpreted as ambiguous per V-Dem’s PCLI. From 1953 to 1958, as per Polity5’s classification, the executive’s authority was significantly constrained by institutional checks during this time. In 1959, the executive’s authority was subject to minor institutional constraints. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, and V-Dem’s LCE is similarly interpreted as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were limited until 1956 and moderate from 1957-1959. Because Polity5 and V-Dem’s PCLI and LCE show at least a medium amount of political liberties and legislative constraints on the executive, we categorize the now independent Laos as a constitutional monarchy.

A military coup led by General Phoumi Nosavan, and supported by the USA and right­wing civilians, ousted the civilian government under Prime Minister Phoui Sananikone, Boun Oum’s successor, with approval from King Vatthana (Chaloemtiarana 2007: 161, Stuart-Fox 1986: 25, Stuart-Fox 1997: 109-10). The coup virtually ended the Laotian monarchy’s power, it continued to exist only in a ceremonial capacity and its influence was greatly diminished.¹² According to LIED multiparty executive and legislative elections were held. We would argue that legislative elections were held, but clearly the executive did not derive from elections. Hence, according to our judgement there were no executive elections in this period. On 12/25/1959 the term of parliament expired. However, elections for its replacement were not scheduled until 04/1960. The elections were marred by alleged fraudulent activities involving the royal Lao Army and purported assistance from the CIA. Accusations include gerrymandering, payoffs, and ballot box tampering, leading to a loss for the Pathet Lao.¹³ Given these circumstances, despite the occurrence of elections, Laos remained under military autocracy during this period, as the electoral process did not alter the prevailing power dynamics established by the 1959 coup. General Nosavan’s direct control over the government precludes characterizing the regime as indirect military rule masked by an electoral system with a figurehead president. Based on Polity5’s assessment, the executive faced slight limitations on power during this period. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate. LIED identifies political liberties as absent, and V-Dem’s PCLI is classified by us as ambiguous regarding the status of political liberties.

A left-wing coup led by Captain Kong Le aiming to jumpstart the negotiations with the Pathet Lao communist rebels ousted the conservative government led by General Phoumi (Stuart-Fox 1986: 26, Chaloemtiarana 2007: 161, Geddes/Wright/Frantz 2014: 73). On 12/10/1960 Prince Souvanna Phouma fled fighting between the Left and Right forces. General Phoumi Nosavan assumed executive power in the vacuum. In the meantime, between 12/11&12, Kong Le tried to generate citizens support in the capital city Vientiane.¹³ In Luang Prabang, the national assembly, flown in by U.S., voted „No confidence” in Souvanna Phouma’s regime and backed General Phoumi Nosavan and his revolutionary committee.¹³ According to Lao legislation, the expression of „no confidence“ in the government resulted in the country being without a lawful administration until the king issued an ordinance to establish a replacement.¹³ The following day, on 12/13/1960, in the wake of Souvanna Phouma vacating the government and General Phoumi Nosavan tactical position in the war, Boum Oum stepped up as interim prime minister but was quickly overshadowed by Phoumi Nosavan and military’s assertion of political executive power. On 12/16/1960 The military forces under General Phoumi successfully recaptured Vientiane from the neutralist government and its defending military faction (Stuart-Fox 1986: 27, Dommen 1995, Chaloemtiarana 2007: 162). After the December 1960 coup, Laos had two governments, one controlled by the right and the other controlled by Souvanna Phouma and Capt. Kong Le, who espoused neutral policies. The neutralist government was established in the Plain of Jars (Stuart-Fox 1986: 27). The government led by General Phoumi and his civilian prime minister seems to have been the stronger and controlled the capital (Geddes/Wright/Frantz 2014: 73-74). The Paris Peace Accords on 06/22/1962 forced Nosavan to give up his hold on executive power and mandated Phouma resume his post as prime minister. LIED continues to code political liberties as absent. V-Dem’s PCLI indicates them with an ambiguous presence. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate.

On this date, a tripartite coalition was forced on General Phoumi and his supporters by the U.S. (Stuart-Fox 1986: 27-28, Dommen 1995). The Declaration on the Neutrality of Laos establishing the Tripartite government was signed on 07/24/1962 (Lee 1969: 536, Geddes/Wright/Frantz 2014: 73-74). Although forced to relinquish his monopoly on power, Nosavan retained significant executive and official powers after the Paris Peace Accords on 04/19/1964. He abused these powers extensively for personal gain and several right-wing generals became jealous. As a result, they ousted him by force and imposed restraints on Phouma in a partial coup. In May 1975 large, communist-organized student and union demonstrations against the anti-communists in the coalition government caused several non-communist ministers and a number of top generals to resign and flee the country. Continuing demonstrations in May and June caused the US to withdraw from Laos. On 08/24/1975 Communist Pathet Lao Rebels and the population supporting them began to impose their will on the government and installed themselves as the Revolutionary Administration Cabinet. Phouma remained the Prime Minister with some authority. Between July and November, most remaining high-level officers and civil servants were sent, most voluntarily, for what was supposed to be a few months of political re-education. According to LIED multiparty executive and legislative elections were held until 1973, in 1974 only executive elections were held. In the whole period there were rival governments and no effective central power, hence, we code this period rather as no central authority than as a non-electoral transitional regime. As classified by FH since 1972, the country scores between 9 and 10 as not free, which we interpret as rather not free. Moreover, political liberties maintained to be coded as absent according to LIED. V-Dem’s PCLI states them as ambiguous. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate. The persistent lack of centralized, uncontested, and functioning authority, despite the presence of formal institutions, warrants classification of this entire period as no central authority rather than as a non-electoral transitional regime.

The king’s abdication and the prime minister’s resignation marked the conclusive stages of a largely peaceful transition from a coalition to a communist government from May to December 1975. On 12/02/1975, the National Congress of People’s Representatives eliminated the monarchy and established the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Stuart-Fox 1986: 33-35, Geddes/Wright/Frantz 2014: 74). Since then, the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP) has been the state party. Kaysone Phomvihan, the general secretary became prime minister and the effective head of government (Savada 1994a). Laos had no constitution until 1991. On 08/14/1991 a constitution was adopted by the Assembly. The constitution outlines both the duties and powers of the government, as well as the rights and responsibilities of Laotian citizens. It specifies that the LPRP is the leading body of the political system in Laos but does not explicitly ban other political parties (Johnson 1992: 84).¹⁴ The LPRP exercises full control over political matters and imposes severe limitations on civil liberties. There are no organized opposition groups, independent civil society organizations, or independent media outlets allowed. The 61-member Central Committee of the LPRP, led by the 11-member Politburo, is responsible for making all significant decisions. The electoral laws and framework are structured to guarantee the dominance of the LPRP, the sole legal party, in every election, thereby exerting control over the political system. The LPRP screens all candidates seeking election to the National Assembly, where members then vote for the president and prime minister. National Assembly elections occur every five years, but they lack fairness and transparency, and international observers are not allowed to monitor them. According to LIED no multiparty executive and legislative were held until 1988, from 1989 onward executive and legislative elections, which weren’t multiparty, were held. Elections in Laos have never been scored outside the realm of what we interpret as not clean by the V-Dem’s CEI. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic revised its constitution in 2003 and 2015 respectively, with the 2003 Amended Constitution reforming the country’s judiciary and granting more extensive powers to the Supreme Court. Following the reform, judges are appointed and dismissed by the National Assembly Standing Committee, based on the recommendation of the President of the Supreme Court. Both the Supreme Court and the Supreme People’s Prosecutor report to the National Assembly. The 2015 Amended Constitution added three chapters and 21 articles and introduced a term limit of two consecutive terms for the presidential office. It also allowed the establishment of provincial assemblies, which effectively function as local parliaments.¹⁵ On 02/21/2021 elections were held, the LPRP secured 158 out of the 164 seats in the assembly, with the remaining seats allocated to pre-approved independent candidates.¹⁶ Leading human rights advocates remain detained, with investigations into forced disappearances of activist and ethnic minorities stalled. The ChaoFa Hmong ethnic group continues to encounter restrictions in accessing essentials like food, water, and healthcare.¹⁷ Per FH, for this regime period, the country scores between 11 and 14 as not free, which we also interpret as not free. Since 1975 both LIED and V-Dem’s PCLI indicate that political liberties were absent. According to Polity5, during this period, the executive encountered slight limitations on decision-making power imposed by other institutions. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were moderate, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate until 1988 and in 2022, absent from 1989-2918 and in 2020, and limited in 2019, 2021 and 2023.

Communist Ideocracy as of 07/01/2025 continued.

Additional Sources (Brown/Zasloff 1986, Hartmann 2001, Zasloff/Unger 1991)