What went so wrong with Thailand's image that His Majesty the King has to worry about it and urge the new Cabinet - at their swearing-in ceremony at Chitralada Palace on Monday - to help restore the country's reputation in the eyes of the international community?

The coup makers who ousted elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra on September 19 might simply believe they had exorcised the most dangerous figure in Thai politics, and by doing so, opened the door for democracy to return.

They might be aware of the tide of international opinion against the putsch but may not have been able to fathom the impact it has had on how some members of the international community now see the Kingdom. The coup has its consequences and all political actions have a cost to be paid.

Washington has already suspended US$24 million (Bt900 million) in military assistance to Thailand, since US law prohibits the administration from giving aid to any country where the military topples an elected government.

Despite not taking action like the US, many Western nations - and Western look-alikes such as Singapore - consider the coup as a major setback for Thai democracy. They once regarded the Kingdom as one of the advanced democratic societies in the region.

The coup has caused Thailand to be downgraded to the same level as military-ruled Burma, or that is what some appear to want us to believe.

Military officers, intellectuals and the media have argued over the bloodless coup and whether it has harmed Thai society, as the transfer of power was very smooth.

Further, they have said, it was a "Thai way to democracy", and that other countries should not - perhaps have no right to - criticise, if Thais want to live with this option.

A group of academics from the National Institute of Development Administration led by Somphot Kannanut lodged a petition with the US Embassy yesterday asking Washington to refrain from expressing its hype against the coup as such comments could be interpreted as intervening in the country's internal affairs.

"Please respect our political maturity. We can solve problems our own way within the framework of democracy under monarchy," Somphot said.

"Our democracy is different from American democracy."

Perhaps foreigners operate on a different logic from Thai academics, as they can't understand how the military coup, with or without bloodshed, could install a democracy in the Kingdom. The contention of a "Thai way" of democracy is unconvincing to non-Thais.

From the foreign point of view, if a country needs to use armed force to end a political deadlock, it just means the political system doesn't work. A malfunctioning political system would also destroy confidence in the system.

To the military's chagrin, a lot of coverage from the international media painted the coup here in a negative light and failed to stress the bright prospects for Thai democracy over the long run.

Time magazine on October 1, for example, asked in an article, "Can Thailand's New Premier Bring Back Democracy?"

Retired Army chief Surayud Chulanont, who took the premiership, may have a spotless reputation, but his military background would only fuel questions about the ruling junta's commitment to restore democracy, it said.

The Thai elite, who have been running the show for a long time, know very well that the Kingdom has never stood alone in the global village and international opinion is crucial to rebuild confidence in the country's political system.

Not just the Foreign Ministry, but the whole Cabinet and the junta have their work cut out to upgrade the country's image.

It will take more than public relations with white papers and diplomatic efforts to restore the country's credibility in the international arena - if there is no move to re-install democracy here in a short period, as the coup leaders have promised.

Nobody would subscribe to the propaganda of a quick resumption of democracy if the military retains power with martial law, suppression of freedom of expression and media censorship.

Supalak Ganjanakhundee

The Nation