• 
• 

It also proved that the current system, though many people may dislike it, has the ability to get rid of "undesirable" elements.

Of course, Samak may be given the chance to return as PM, but there are several legal obstacles waiting for him to overcome. He might eventually find himself at a dead end, while the system of Thai democracy flourishes.

Street protests alone, no matter how large and for how long, will not be able to topple the government.

Instead, protests and social unrest could destroy the principles and the very spirit of democracy if society allows a certain group of people to exploit some elements of the democratic idea for their own agenda.

This society was misled by a group of people, who call themselves the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), about the true meaning of democracy and freedom of assembly.

The protest leaders misused Article 63 of the military-sponsored Constitution to protect themselves from legal action and hijacked the term "civil disobedience" to avoid social criticism.

The article clearly states that people have the right to stage a peaceful protest without weapons. Its second paragraph clarifies that such freedom of assembly must not be prohibited unless the authorities need to protect people and their right to conveniently use public places or to keep order during war or a state of emergency.

Under the spirit of the law, people in a democratic society have the freedom to express their political opinions, and whether they agree or not, the authorities have to let them speak freely through any means, whether it be through speech, media or street protests.

However, this freedom does not give people the right to violate the law, and civil disobedience cannot be used as a means to stay above the law. Mahatma Gandhi, who used civil disobedience to free India from the shackles of the British Empire, made it clear that he would voluntarily give himself up if the authorities wanted to detain any civil resisters.

Looking at what PAD has been doing over the past few months, it is clear that their actions are mostly against the Constitution, the democratic norm and the so-called idea of civil disobedience.

Firstly, their protest has been based on one of the busiest roads in the capital, and has in turn has been blocking traffic and basically hindering commuters - an action that is not just against the traffic law, but the Constitution.

Also, they do not have the constitutional right to storm into state properties like the NBT television station and Government House.

It is true that protesters have the basic right to call on the PM to step down, but there is no law that gives them the right to stage a street protest to topple the government.

In addition, using means other than the channels mentioned in the Constitution is a criminal offence and they can be charged for treason. If they were employing the true civil-disobedience principle, then all nine PAD leaders who face arrest should surrender. Of course, they should all be given the right to seek bail.

State enterprises getting in on the act and pressuring the government to achieve the same goal is also against the law. Labour law allows workers to hold strikes for improving their working conditions, but it does not allow them to rally for political goals.

In a democratic country, citizens have the right to oust a government that is running the country against the will of its population. Thailand already has enough legal mechanisms to bring down corrupt governments. Besides, with Tuesday's ruling - which brought down Samak - his People's Power Party and two other coalition parties are already facing legal action that will possibly result in an end to his government.

More street protests are unnecessary, especially if the protesters have motives that are undemocratic and can hurt the country's rule of law.