Too many people chose to delude themselves into believing that the military coup was like a reset button on a computer, offering an easy way for a democracy in crisis to get a new start. These people saw members of the military junta as self-sacrificing knights in shining armour coming to their rescue. They should have realised that there are high costs that Thai society will have to pay.

The most obvious cost that may not be apparent right now but will become more clear in the foreseeable future is that the military will continue to wield extra clout in Thai politics long after a new democratically elected civilian government succeeds the interim Surayud administration.

The rift that is developing between members of the Council for National Security (CNS) and the interim Surayud government offers a glimpse of the sort of democracy that Thai people will have to live with in the future and the role of the military in it. The dispute brewing between the two sides is based on different attitudes and approaches that each side has taken to fulfil their self-appointed task of restoring democracy in this country and ensuring its sustainability.

The Surayud government is taking a principled approach in dealing with the corruption scandals and other transgressions allegedly committed by deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra by emphasising due process under the rule of law, which is time consuming. Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont's refusal to declare emergency law to crack down on anti-government, anti-CNS protesters allegedly hired by Thaksin's loyalists to create a political disturbance in Bangkok, as recommended by the CNS, is also consistent with the principle that a democratic government must tolerate political dissent and respect freedom of expression.

Members of the CNS would rather take matters into their own hands and summarily punish Thaksin and his cronies for their alleged crimes. They would also rather smash anti-government, anti-military protesters with an iron fist to placate what they see as growing public frustration with the performance of the Surayud government, which they feel reflects badly on them for having installed it in the first place. In a way, the CNS's impatience is driven by self-interest rather than what is good for the country in the long term.

The CNS is apparently more worried about the public perception of the military as an institution and its traditional role as guardian of the monarchy and the nation.

Obviously the military junta wants the people to see it as decisive and effective and perhaps even indispensable in ensuring democracy's good health.

But the military junta must be reminded that as self-proclaimed restorers of democracy both the Surayud government and the CNS have the duty to practise what they preach even though they now wield absolute political power in the absence of democracy. Besides, the military is supposed to work itself out of its self-assigned job of restoring democracy - not to perpetuate its hold on political power. If the military wants to demonstrate beyond any doubt that it has the discipline required to submit itself to the will of a democratically elected civilian government in the future, the least it can do is to begin to show some respect for the Surayud government.

As for the impatient, unprincipled segment of the Thai public, they must learn democratic principles. Whether democracy in this country will live or die in the future depends on the supremacy of the rule of law, honest and accountable government and effective citizenship being in place. Over-dependence on powerful institutions to guarantee a functioning democracy is not only myopic, it is self-destructive.