The situation would be controlled if there were an actual separation in the different bodies of government. The three separate chambers are in fact intertwined; the judiciary seems more like an instrument rather than a decision-maker, and the army’s direct involvement complicated the political make-up even further. Similar developments can be seen in Pakistan with a newly elected democratic President — Asif Ali Zardari — who nevertheless both benefits and is hurt by his relationship with a controversial former prime minister. Thailand and Pakistan have a similar past of successive military and democratic governments; both are questionable as “real” democracies.

So far the protests have been largely peaceful, except for one death and several injured. However, this new appointment might result in further protests. Thailand has a harsh history with protest; in the 1976 Uprising the military brutally killed several hundreds. The current military position, under its chief Paojinda, is that it refuses to utilise force to remove the PAD from Government House. The potential risk is the abolition of democracy, the death of several hundreds and the continuation of undemocratic politics. This is not a battle between political parties but rather between two factions of Bangkok (Thai) society — the traditionalists and the reformists. The old elites are up in arms against the new elites, and the result is the neglect of millions who are unable to influence politics. Should the protesters succeed once again, the masses might potentially lose their right to vote and democracy in Thailand will once again be an aspiration rather than a reality.

... contd.