Those decisions led to so many major consequences. The mass rally at Sanam Luang yesterday, with threats of violence not being ruled out at press time, was just one of them. The country has come to a point where it has to make another decision in regard to Thaksin. On the surface, he seems to know that, given his dissolution of the House  on Friday to allow a virtual public referendum on his besieged legitimacy. But he doesn't seem to realise that when a nation has to decide its own fate, it's not necessarily through a snap election. We have seen downfalls of elected, once highly-popular governments through uprisings or other means. As long as Thaksin fails to fully recognise the nation's right to control its own destiny, the present crisis will not go away.

Democracy has to be thorough. It's a system that demands the most open of minds to be effective and flourish. While Thaksin must have felt bitter and furious about threats by the opposition bloc to boycott the snap election, he should have been aware that he may be the root cause for the apparent disrespect for the laws of democracy. Under his reign, Thai democracy has become crippled beyond recognition. Advocates of civil liberty, freedom of speech and political transparency have protested, cautioned and warned him again and again, but the only tangible response has always been insult to their wounds. When the Constitution Court failed to redeem itself after the shocking 2001 ruling acquitting him of assets concealment and balked this month at solid allegations of the PM breaching the charter, with the sale of Shin Corp, it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

An underlying message from Sanam Luang is that a lot of Thais have had enough of Thaksin's selective use of "democracy". When confronted with indisputable charges, he has said "democracy is not my goal", but when his back is against the wall, he returns to the comfort zone of "19 million people voted for me". The House dissolution and snap election were claimed to be the most democratic way of solving the political impasse, but the truth is they are anything but.

It's painful for all lovers of democracy to question the virtues of an election. But this is another soul-searching time. Thanks to Thaksin, many aspects of democracy have been given a new perspective. We had wanted a stable, one-party government that could push ahead with a grand national agenda but ended up with a nightmare one-party rule. We had wanted to give the prime minister more power to deal with factional trouble but new constitutional rules have enabled Thaksin to "enslave" many of his MPs. And other lessons we have learned over the past five years include the fact that no matter how ideal checks and balances look on paper, the system depends as much on individuals' integrity, as design.

With much of Thailand's political system under his dubious control, what we are witnessing at the moment is democracy struggling to wrest itself from his grasp. And this is happening in a somewhat controversial way. A total rejection of the prime minsiter's constitutional power to dissolve the House of Representatives, and public demands for the opposition parties to boycott the snap election both defy fundamental practices of democracy. Everything at the moment appears unprecedented and unorthodox, and there have been times when the line between right and wrong has been blurred.

Who is to blame? Thaksin, an unsaid advocate of an-eye-for-an-eye approach, should know better than anybody else. He owes democracy a debt of gratitude from 2001 and again early last year. Not only has he failed to pay his dues, he has undermined a system that gave people like him a chance. His present crisis is nothing but democracy's way of saying "it's payback time".