• 
• 

The question is who should take the blame if blood is spilled, if Thais again resort to killing Thais. With most, if not all, key contentious political issues now in the hands of the courts, the PAD's highly provocative action yesterday was completely uncalled for. The group's actions - including briefly seizing control of a television station, invading government offices and occupying Government House - belied the PAD's own claims of nonviolence.

 

Although the movement may have shot itself in the foot, that is the least of the problems. The consequences from yesterday's events could be far beyond the collapse of an ideological grouping whose motives have gone from clear-cut to incomprehensible. There could have been - and may still be - a bloodbath. The military could come in and this time set back democracy for real.

 

Media organisations' stinging rebuke of the PAD's actions should serve as a warning, not least because it comes from press umbrella groups that have been largely sympathetic to the PAD's cause. The movement has started to be seriously questioned, because Thailand has been trying to break through the political impasse with the help of a judiciary that has demonstrated remarkable integrity and independence.

 

As a civic group, the PAD has the right to protest peacefully. Yesterday, its leaders may have bitten off more than they can chew, because they were suddenly no longer all about protecting the public interest, but rather about determining who should stay and who should go aside from Thaksin Shinawatra. The intentions may still be noble, but yesterday's means was anything but.

 

We can only pray it was a mere slip, and in the end good sense will once again prevail. The Samak government's response to the high-tension chaos was commendable, and the prime minister for once refrained from being his own belligerent self. But despite yesterday evening's superficial calm at Government House and Samak's unusual composure, threats of violence remained very real last night.

 

Politically, the PAD went too far. Democratically, the movement got too far ahead of itself. The danger of all of this is simply violence that could spiral out of hand, which could then destroy the very things the PAD has pledged to serve and protect.