The second group was also made up of some political activists, such as Weng Tojirakarn, Pratheep Ungsongtham Hata of the Confederation for Democracy and others who are against the September 19 coup.

Both groups played a crucial role in ousting General Suchinda Kraprayoon from power back then, but they're now on opposite sides.  "I won't let those who betrayed the spirit of [the] May [uprising] join the commemoration," said Weng. He need not have worried because a better-funded event had already been organised by the other group.

"Why would [those who are supporting the September 19, 2006 coup] even want to organise an event is beyond my comprehension," a female journalist told this writer.

Political activist Wattanachai Winichakul declared in an interview on the prachatai.com news website that the spirit of May was dead and that, if it had survived, the torchbearers would be those well-intentioned people still struggling against the current junta - the Council for National Security.

This uneasy and awkward situation offers a good opportunity to reflect, however, on what citizens were fighting for back in 1992.

Was it a mere popular uprising in which some 300,000 people took to the streets to oust one unpopular and unelected general-cum-prime minister by the name of Suchinda Kraprayoon? Or was it a struggle fuelled by aspirations for democracy?

If it was to oust a single man, then the mission has been accomplished. If not, then the struggle continues.

Important questions ought to be asked given the current divide in opinion, such as: What role should the military play? Would democracy be best served by the military keeping to the barracks? Or should they be invited to seize power every now and then to help "clean" Thai electoral politics? And can they clean politics? Or are they merely another group of political opportunists?

Is the current military junta a "lesser evil" than Thaksin Shinawatra? And can the course of democracy be advanced by working with the military junta?

Can democracy be built when the rights and views of majority of the populace are often overlooked or looked down upon, not just by bureaucrats, but by some NGOs and the media? What happens to a society when more than 70 per cent of the population has little or no say about the course of their country's future?

How important is the principle of democracy, transparency, and genuine public participation? Is it merely one of the many means or a mean and end in itself?

Can real differing opinions be tolerated in this society without violence being resorted to?

And what do we do with the current junta if they try to hang on to power through various means after the promised election in December?

The two groups organising parallel commemorations will likely have different answers, and so the final question is: Which of these two groups can claim to be the bona fide torchbearer of the spirit of the May 1992 uprising?

People in the present always capitalise on the past to enhance their stature or advance their objectives, and the commemorations held by these two groups are no exception.

The past cannot defend itself from those wanting to plunder it for their own benefit and will always end up subject to various interpretations. But history will judge those who plunder it as well.

As for democracy, it needs to be renewed every now and then by active citizens determined not to allow dictators - be they in civilian clothes or military uniforms - to dictate the future course of Thai society without their consent.

Perhaps this is the true spirit of May, and even those who weren't active 15 years ago, or not involved in organising either of the two commemorations, can be the torchbearers of that spirit too.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation