Supporters of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra gather under a giant portrait of King Bhumibol Adulyadej in Bangkok on March 13.Sakchai Lalit
Demonstrators in the streets of Bangkok have been taking Thailand one agonizing step further toward the end of its long, often gallant struggle for democracy. If freedom comes to an end in the Land of the Free - that is what the country's name means - this will mark its demise in most of Southeast Asia 35 years after the end of the Vietnam war. Communist China is eagerly waiting to pick up the pieces.
The red-shirted demonstrators, joined by some well-meaning orange-robed Buddhist monks, are not really for democracy. They are for the return to power of an exiled Sino-Thai kleptomaniac, Thaksin Shinawatra, who tore the country apart politically and economically when he was in power from 2001 to 2006, and will wreak more damage it if he comes back.
In the last analysis, only one man can save Thailand, and he is dying in a Bangkok hospital of heart and other problems. King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 82, has been revered by his people since he ascended the throne in 1946.
In 1973, he made Thai democracy possible by ousting a misruling clique of selfish generals during Thailand's first, genuine pro-democracy protests. In 1992, he put his country on what seemed like a lasting democratic path - and cemented his role as political mediator of last resort - by getting rid of another self-centred military junta during even greater popular protests. There is a desperate need for Bhumibol playing this crucial role one last time.
UNDERMINING THE MONARCHY
Mr. Thaksin and his followers, although most of them may not realize it, are anti-royalist.
While robbing the government of at least $1.4-billion while he was prime minister - the sum determined in an unanimous order for repayment from Thailand's supreme court ordering him to pay it back (he was allowed to keep another $900-million) - Mr. Thaksin insidiously sought to undermine the monarchy.
The King's even-handedness is especially needed because his heir apparent, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, shows none of his father's attributes and is widely distrusted. As monarch, he would likely make matters worse.
Since 1932, when absolute monarchy (as portrayed in Anna and the King of Siam ) gave way to constitutional monarchy after the first of many coups, Thailand's politics has zigzagged all over the place. The 116 "promoters" of the coup were mostly young civilian and military bureaucrats from comfortable families, who divided into what amounted to a neo-fascist camp led by Thailand's first strongman, Marshal Pibul Songgram, and a neo-Communist camp led by the mysterious Pridi Phanomyang.
Despite Pibul's anti-Chinese "Thailand for the Thais" reforms - he changed the country's name from Siam - and Pridi's revolutionary rhetoric, there was little to encourage meaningful democracy. Pibul collaborated with the Japanese occupiers during the Second World War, but, thanks to diplomat M.R. Seni Pramoj's refusal to deliver Thailand's declaration of war on the United States, Washington supported Thai aspirations for democracy after the war. The British sharply dissented; secret co-operation between Lord Louis Mountbatten and the scheming Pridi almost brought about a popular Thai revolt, which would have been very likely to result in a Communist takeover. As the first postwar prime minister, Mr. Seni intervened by making public the harsh terms of a proposed peace treaty that would have effectively, if briefly, made Thailand a British colony.
This history shows why democracy has had such trouble sinking deep roots in Thailand.
Thais greatly value their personal freedoms, which can be traced back to the 13th century and their own version of Magna Carta. But they have difficulty bringing together the three elements that bind Thailand: their land, their religion (Theravada Buddhism) and their monarchy.
Repeatedly, generals have been able to seize power. The worst such coup was in 1976; soldiers brutally beat students, and Mr. Seni, again prime minister, was overthrown. But within a year, enlightened generals ousted their regressive comrades and restored the bright shining dream of democracy.
Something similar needs to happen again. Westerners rightly view military coups as bad news. But some Thai generals who put their country above personal spoils. The army overthrew Mr. Thaksin in 2006, not to retake power but to stop him from stealing the country blind while throwing out scraps to impressionable villagers, which had enabled him to win the first majority in the Thai parliament.
An elected government led by the Prachatipat (Democrat) Party is in power now despite demands for its resignation, which if satisfied would be mob rule. Co-founded by Mr. Seni in 1946, Prachatipat is the only real political party the Thais have ever had; the others have been collections of hangers-on to overly ambitious figure, of whom Mr. Thaksin is the most recent and the worst. The Democrat Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, is not a member of the elite despite his Oxford education. He favours real democracy. But Thailand is deeply divided. It will take more than the Democrat Party or even King Bhumibol to begin to heal potentially fatal wounds.
THE ECONOMIC DIVIDE
Thaksin cynically exploited the economic divide between a fast-growing middle class and established bureaucracies in the cities, on one hand and, on the other, subsistence rice-growing families in the countryside, used to being paid for their votes. He widened this gap by distributing largesse to the poor on an unprecedented scale during and after elections - but still a small fraction of what he pocketed personally.
If this was populism, it was unfair. If it was democracy, it was immoral.
The divide must be narrowed, if not bridged, so that democracy can work. This country at the heart of Southeast Asia, between India and China, has made steady economic progress over many years, interrupted only by regional or global crises. Annual income per person among almost 70 million Thais has risen to nearly $5,000.
The deeper divide is social, psychological and cultural - all at the same time and hard to define. It goes back to deference to kings, despite the early Siamese respect for personal freedoms and the essential place of the monarchy today in standing for the nation. It reflects Thailand's nearly unique, fortuitous avoidance of Western colonialism, the flip side of which is a shortage of experience with democratic institutions. This was evident in 1973, when middle-class students went out in the streets for democracy but their parents, at first joyful at the sudden end of military rule, became nervous about where it would all end. It is behind Thai feelings of superiority not only toward farangs - Westerners - but also toward Indians, Chinese, Japanese and others.
The inescapable if unprovable conclusion is that many well-off Thais, who worship wealth, are deep down afraid of democracy and the changes it can bring in their lives.
Mr. Thaksin identified this phenomenon and is still riding it as far he can. Clearly neither he nor any other demagogue is the solution. Nor is the Thai army as it sometimes had been, although it can continue to help safeguard democracy, in a way comparable to the Turkish military since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Another election is looming, not at the behest of bloody demonstrators, but under Thai law. Prachatipat must continue to be loyal to Thailand's democratic heritage as Thailand's only well-defined party. The Democrats need to erase any taint of corruption in their own ranks, and stimulate the creation of a responsible conservative party.
First and last, there is the monarchy, which goes to the heart of the nation.
It is indispensable. Again, if King Bhumibol cannot appear in public, as he did so dramatically to end the 1992 crisis, he can issue written statements from his hospital bed, calling for national reconciliation, unity and resolve. The Thai people yearn to feel his presence.
But if the King is unable to save Thailand, perhaps his daughter can.
Crown Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, 55, is widely loved and respected by Thais, especially because she said during the 1992 crisis, "We all want the same thing, which is democracy." She is unmarried, which might lead to a future succession problem. Thailand has never had a queen except as wife of a king. Although Sirindhorn was given her special title many years ago, there is no provision for a queen ascending to the throne. But the way a monarch is chosen is also vague - the determining factors are Buddhist consciousness and the will of the people.
Mr. Seni kept a photo of Sirindhorn on his desk until his death in 1997 at the age of 92. In his long interviews with me, he kept coming back to one other thing: Siam Devi Dhiraj, the Siam guardian angel.
The angel has not been seen over Thailand for some time. But, like Harry Potter's good-news owl, he or she is bound to return. And, as Mr. Seni said, "You can't build democracy in a day, you simply cannot. It's not so much a form of government as it is a way of life."
David Van Praagh, a former Globe and Mail correspondent in South and Southeast Asia, is a professor of journalism at Carleton University. He is the author of Thailand's Struggle for Democracy: The Life and Times of M. R. Seni Pramoj.