Based on this criterion, we may quickly arrive at a conclusion that Thaksin Shinawatra was a bad leader. And very soon after he was booted out of office, his Thai Rak Thai Party started going down with him.

This shows that Thai Rak Thai was not an institution like Thaksin and other key members tried to claim. Thai Rak Thai has turned out to be just another ad-hoc political party. Its fate is very similar to the now-defunct Samakkhi Tham Party, created in the early 1990s to prop up General Suchinda Kraprayoon.

It was only last year that Thai Rak Thai, which came to power in 2001, looked invincible after a landslide election victory. It had 377 MPs out of 500 and boasted more than 14 million party members nationwide. It had the nicest office and most sophisticated equipment, as well as first-rate tools for opinion surveys. It commanded the most popular policy platform, and appeared blessed with almost unlimited funding support.

But after the military coup, Thai Rak Thai is now facing ruin, with a mass of resignations from key members. After Thaksin resigned as party leader, it was difficult for it to find a successor. Only at the last minute did Chaturon Chaisang agree to step forward as the new leader. But you can bet that a funeral service will soon be held for Thai Rak Thai.

The other day, MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, the deputy prime minister and finance minister, lectured senior bureaucrats at the Finance Ministry over their lacking a sense of institutional independence. He slammed the Fiscal Policy Office, which is the brain of the Finance Ministry, for kow-towing to politicians' demands rather than standing for what was right in matters relating to fiscal and tax policy. The bureaucrats did not raise a finger when politicians in the former Thaksin government pushed for populist policies that undermined Thailand's fiscal position.

The image of the Finance Ministry has been tarnished over the past three to four years. On the other hand, the image of the Bank of Thailand has been rather impressive under Pridiyathorn's governorship. You can compare the legacy of Pridiyathorn at the Bank of Thailand to the legacy of Dr Somkid Jatusripitak and Dr Thanong Bidaya at the Finance Ministry.

History is in reverse. In 1998 MR Chatu Mongol Sonakul crossed over from the Finance Ministry to head the Bank of Thailand to salvage its image at the height of the financial crisis. The central bank regained its reputation under the leadership of Chatu Mongol and Pridiyathorn. Now Pridiyathorn is returning the service at the Finance Ministry.

Both Chatu Mongol and Pridiyathorn are, in spite of their flaws, good leaders, because when they left their offices, the institutions they led were in good shape and enjoyed good reputations.

Politicians come and go. But institutions must last. The problem with Thai democracy is that it has adopted democracy at face value. Our democracy is driven by personalities rather than by institutional strength. Thaksin was a charismatic leader. But since he left office, most of the institutions - which represent the pillars of democracy - had crumbled under him.

Just take a look at the independent institutions, the government agencies and boards of state enterprises. They were crippled during the Thaksin era. They served politicians' interests rather than protecting the public interest. The chiefs and the members of these institutions are now resigning en masse because the axes are falling fast.

We can't assume democracy at face value and judge it by the electoral process alone. If institutions fail and the rule of law is absent, democracy goes down the drain with them.

Most foreigners, who have been denouncing the Thai coup, do not understand the Thai political system because they are only interested in the electoral process. For in our modern world, elections have come to signify the legitimacy of democratic leaders and governments. But some foreigners have turned a blind eye to the destruction of Thai institutions and the absence of the rule of law during Thaksin's reign.

In a mature democracy the check and balance system will offer a way out of any political conflict. Tony Blair, the British prime minister, is set to lose his power although he has taken the Labour Party to election victory three times in a row. The Labour Party has a mechanism to deal with him. Blair does not have time to wait until the next election to prove whether the majority of British voters are with him or not.

In the case of Thaksin, our check and balance system failed to bring him to task over the massive abuse of power and corruption scandals associated with his regime. He was not held responsible for the damage he did through the check and balance system because our institutions - particularly the weak and corrupted police and public prosecutors - did not function as they should.

Chuan Leekpai probably made the best observation about the Thai coup. He said, "Nobody liked the coup. As a politician, who believed in the parliamentary system, I too do not approve of the coup. But Thaksin had done everything to invite the coup. Since the coup has happened, we can only move on. And from now on, things should improve."

Thanong Khanthong

The Nation