They are hitting Thaksin where it hurts. While democracy lovers here and abroad tend to decry the September 19 coup whenever an opportunity arises, there are a few words that can effectively challenge the assumption that the deposed leader is a victim: "Tak Bai", "Somchai", "Extrajudicial killings", among others.

If Thaksin's ouster is a blow to democracy, does that mean people who think so can condone Tak Bai as long as such an incident happened under an elected government? Does it mean that when activists shed tears for the "loss of Thai democracy", they are in fact bemoaning a Thaksin-style democracy per se?

And the same logic applies to alleged corruption cases. If a democratically elected prime minister can enter a bid for highly-lucrative government land in apparent violation of conflict-of-interest laws and the country's checks and balances cannot do anything about it, can we still call it a functioning democracy?

What's the difference between democracy and dictatorship then, if the first family can avoid taxes at will while other citizens engaged in similar business transactions are squeezed dry by revenue officials? The interim leaders are obviously trying to add these elements into the coup debate, which has put their backs against the wall. There is nothing else they can do but to show that real democracy can cease to exist or become a lame duck when elected officials lose accountability. That Thaksin was a democratically elected leader should be the least that matters. What he did as a leader should count the most.

The interim leaders have got the attention they wanted. Now it's time they and the Thai public begin a learning process by exploring the true nature of the Tak Bai incident and the Ratchadaphisek land scandal and the like.

And the last thing our nation needs is to turn the process into some kind of political game. Together, the coup leaders and Thai people must dig into the heart of such terms as "civil liberty", "social justice", "accountability" and "conflict of interest."

Nobody can beat Thaksin at his own game. When it came to nepotism, political spins, bribery or co-opting potential enemies into allies, he was the best in the business and most likely still is. An easy piece of advice, which may be hard to follow, is for the interim leaders to fight the temptations to copy those tricks. All the work will come to an end if the people start to think: "They are doing exactly what they accused him of doing."

The protest suicide of anti-coup taxi driver Nuamthong Phaiwan is tragic, but, thinking of all the contentious incidents that took place when Thaksin was in power, it can also be seen as ironic. As a nation we do need to soul search on what is the true spirit of democracy and what we should strive for or even die to protect.

Thaksin has confused us, and so has the coup. Where were we when the democratic spirit of the 1997 charter was trampled upon by the decision to let him get away with grave political sins? Where were we when thousands of drug suspects dropped like flies in Thaksin's much-vaunted anti-narcotics campaign? And where were we when the Tak Bai protesters suffocated to death on those military trucks?

It's possible Nuamthong didn't hang himself over Thaksin. Possibly, he may have seen "democracy" taken away from his compatriots. And it will magnify the man's ideological determination if he was not a Thaksin admirer and he did it purely for the sake of "democracy."

Will his death be in vain? Ironically, the coup leaders can make him an example of someone who died for a noble cause by proving him wrong. Failing that, Nuamthong will have died for nothing.