By 2005, when Thaksin was reelected, again with massive support from the poor

By 2005, when Thaksin was reelected, again with massive support from the poor, he dominated the country’s political landscape. And yet Thailand had not become Equatorial Guinea or Libya; the Thai middle classes, who had led the democratic revolution before, could have fought back against Thaksin at the ballot box, through the remaining independent news outlets or in the courts. But instead, like middle classes in many emerging democracies today, they had grown disillusioned with democracy, believing that it had delivered only elected autocracy and that it would empower the poor at their expense.
So, instead of choosing the democratic path, Thailand’s urban middle class launched street protests in 2006 designed to bring down an elected government—by triggering a coup if necessary. The protesters encouraged a return to older forms of Thai “democracy,” in which a small oligarchy essentially controlled politics through unelected positions in parliament, the bureaucracy, and the army. They got what they wanted: the military launched a coup in September 2006, and Thaksin fled into exile. This process has been repeated in recent years in countries from the Philippines to Honduras, where middle classes have used similarly dubious means to push out elected leaders they viewed as excessively populist.
The Thai coup, unfortunately, only triggered a total meltdown. Thaksin might have damaged the country’s weak democracy, but the military ruined it. It shredded the reformist constitution and set the stage for today’s Thai government, which unleashed massive force against demonstrators who gathered in the streets of Bangkok in spring 2010. In that bloodshed, at least eighty people were killed, and parts of Bangkok’s central business district were torched, leaving the prosperous city looking more like Baghdad or Kabul. — กับ Juab Thaidang

The Lessons of Thailand's Meltdown
Later this year, Thailand will go to the polls in a national election touted by the government as a major step toward reconciliation between classes and factions following the bloodshed last year. But the election is unlikely to be free and fair. The military allegedly has been working behind the scenes to build support for the ruling party, and if the opposition, still aligned with the exiled Thaksin, does happen to win, it is quite possible the armed forces will launch a coup. This would only further deepen class divides in Thailand and possibly spark all-out civil conflict.
Thailand’s fate is not destined to be repeated in the Middle East, but as in Thailand, the democratic revolts in the Arab-Muslim world could easily get sidetracked. Fighting for change is not easy, and in countries like Egypt, where unemployment is high, would-be reformers could want to return to their businesses and their families rather than investing years or decades promoting good governance.
But continued investment in reform is critical. In Middle Eastern nations with little history of democratic politics, and where for decades political losers fled the country or wound up in jail, it is not hard to imagine that the first generation of elected leaders will, like Thaksin, use their electoral victories to crush all opposition. And if a populist leader like Thaksin wins initial elections in countries like Egypt or Tunisia, or possibly Morocco or Jordan, where large underclasses or repressed ethnic or religious groups are gaining freedom, it could easily trigger a backlash from middle classes and elites, who would turn to their traditional protectors—the army, the security forces, the palace—to squash real democratic rule. In Egypt, liberal economic reforms instituted since the early 2000s have opened up the economy, but they also have led to rising inequality: new mansions have sprung up in posh areas of Cairo, yet nearly one-third of Upper Egypt still lives in poverty.
To avoid Thailand’s fate, Middle Eastern reformers should take several critical steps. For one, they must realize that, even after they topple a dictator, they cannot abandon the hard work of reforms; it is in these early days of democratization that the need for independent government watchdogs, new press outlets, or aggressive unions is most vital. In addition, they must resist the tendency to personalize reform—to focus all their hopes for change on one leader, as some Thais put all their hope in Thaksin, or as many Indonesians have placed their hopes in current president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. When the public puts so much hope in one potential reformer, his or her failings become magnified, often leading to disillusionment with democracy itself. Finally, new leaders in the Middle East will have to enact policies that help reduce economic inequality, which has been fatal to democracy in Thailand—and could be as well in Egypt or Tunisia—with populist-elected autocrats winning office on the poor’s new political empowerment but then using their power to undermine democracy’s very institutions. — กับ Juab Thaidang