Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post

Thaksin was corrupt? Thailand is more corrupt now.
Thailand was accused of cronyism? Thailand is more nepotistic now. In particular, the cronyism within the military is dangerous.

I think that more and more people who unconscionably supported many of the goings on here because of their opposition to Thaksin, are starting to realise the truth now. They stuffed it up, big time. Essentially the same mainly Bangkok middle class that faced down the Military back in the early nineties has now been duped into installing them back into the driving seat. This is not what they wanted. From a democratic standpoint, I suppose Thailand has regressed about twenty years.

From a Thai historical Pov, perhaps you might look at it differently. The old order has reasserted itself. Based on that viewpoint, you would see the rise of Thaksin- a civilian PM who wielded some real power because of his popularity and electoral clout- as an anomaly. Politically, Thailand is back to it's traditional authoritarian norm. Democratic institutions are largely a facade, and squabbling, corrupt Politicians are tolerated as long as Power resides firmly at the Centre. Considering the losers in this equation are the broader mass of the people, including the Middle and professional classes, I think the reality is very much that they were duped by the old Elites.

The main threat posed to this status quo is an effective civilian politician. Which is of course the story of Thaksin, although it must be conceded he gave his enemies plenty of ammunition too.
It's unfortunate Sabang, that such straight forward verses need to be repeated over and again for a number of circles to be convinced. Some might throw aside historic comparatives as such applies to the recycling process, as it all becomes mired in the same mix. Simply, the Thai system is corrupt, by it's very nature - regardless of said civilian leadership. Oligarchical regimes have dominated Thai political reigns for every part of several decades, with periods of civil facades here and there. Thaksin and his government, certainly weren't established as a break-away era. Because in a number of ways, he enacted his positions as one and the same - conforming himself to the old establishment {namely the militarist/loyalist crowd} - just as it is today. These arguments that persist amongst the few that there might be a difference from one government type to the other is quite sad. Because there isn't much. The traditional system is corrupt, regardless of leadership, and historically it has been rather rhetorical, less moot.