Understandably, a growing number of people feel frustrated and angry about the current political deadlock, which centres on questions of Thaksin’s continued legitimacy to rule after he allegedly engaged in large-scale corruption and abused government power for personal gain.

Under normal circumstances, such impeachable offences by a sitting prime minister would have unquestionably been settled by constitutionally appointed watchdog agencies like the Constitution Court or the National Counter Corruption Commission. But the problem is that these supposedly independent bodies can no longer be counted on to discharge their duties in a straightforward manner, because of their gross manipulation by the government.

The anti-Thaksin protesters are now demanding that the prime minister resign immediately or at the very least dissolve the House of Representatives to make way for a new election. Thaksin on the other hand insists that his and his ruling Thai Rak Thai Party’s public mandate gained from the landslide victory in last year’s general election remains intact, and he vows to stay on as the country’s chief executive.

But the most important consideration of all is that this ongoing contest of opposing political viewpoints be conducted peacefully and in compliance with our Constitution, which defines the code of behaviour that every citizen and the government must strictly observe. Citizens have the rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and the government has a duty to keep the peace and maintain public order.

No one really knows whether the volatile situation that Thailand now finds itself immersed in will lead to a quick resolution of the political stalemate or a long and drawn-out conflict. But either way, the Thai public stands to benefit in no small way from the unfolding power struggle in one area at least: the opportunity to gain a quality first-hand political education.

If the Thai public never paid as much attention to politics as they should have before, then they are now learning a great deal simply by following the arguments being put forward by both of the opposing political camps.

With the government controlling the broadcast media – which is where the vast majority of Thais get their news and other information – the public hears plenty of the Thaksin government’s one-sided tirades and propaganda against its critics. The government is constantly portraying the anti-Thaksin protesters as nothing but troublemakers who are bent on divisiveness and inciting unrest by spreading “false” accusations against the prime minister.

However, virtually nothing comes out of the anti-Thaksin camp itself, which counts among its supporters the country’s top academics and leading members of civil society. Citizens hear virtually nothing of substance from the other side, whose point of view is diametrically opposed to the government’s.

Dissenting academics and civic leaders deserve praise for their sound reasoning when they argue that Thaksin no longer has the legitimacy to rule as a democratic leader, citing an exhaustive catalogue of corruption scandals and instances of conflict of interest that have happened under his watch.

But this current power struggle and the prevailing sense of uncertainty about the future direction of Thailand’s fledgling democracy certainly cannot be regarded as all bad. Nothing focuses the mind of the normally attention-deficit Thai electorate like a political crisis of this magnitude. Now, people are forced to ponder deeply the most fundamental of questions of democracy, such as who should have the power to rule and what the ideal relationship is between ruler and citizen.