• 
• 

Today Thailand remembers something that seems like it took place yesterday, but is already widely described as politically obsolete. So much has happened since the military ousted the Thaksin government in a coup on September 19, 2006, but that fateful day is still fresh in our memories. We still recall Thaksin Shinawatra's initial resistance from New York and our general ambivalence summed up in the words of a well-respected senior citizen: "I'm sad, but I'm not angry."

After two years, nobody - the most ardent supporters of the coup and its most vehement critics alike - would dare say for certain whether the end would one day justify the means. Things went downhill after the power seizure, with the nation's image taking a major battering. Foreign investors were scared. International democracy advocates condemned the new regime. And those who replaced the alleged election crooks did not prove a better alternative when it came to running a government.

But no blood was shed - the sole civilian casualty was a taxi driver who committed suicide to protest the military's interference in politics. Broadcast media freedoms were curtailed, but the generally anti-Thaksin print media suffered no ill effects from the coup. A summary investigation into corruption was introduced, and then a series of graft charges surfaced against some of the generals themselves.

The coup-makers ordered the drafting of a new Constitution, which was put to a national referendum, with the credibility of the results depending largely on which side you support. The pledge to return democracy to the Thai people within one year was missed, but only by a few months, allowing the reincarnation of Thai Rak Thai, which had been disbanded while the military was in power. The inspiring success of the People Power Party underlined the "failures" of the coup, but it also blurred the fact that the election could have easily been prevented from happening at all.

September 19, 2006 was a turning point. Without it all the corruption charges against Thaksin Shinawatra would not have been investigated at all, even if they were later pursued in a manner many found unacceptable. Without it Thailand's half-baked democracy, which prospered under Thaksin - one in which the rule of law wilted under a wrongful assertion of election legitimacy - would have been stronger today.

Of course, without the coup the simmering divide might have kept on simmering instead of exploding in the recent tragic incident that saw Thais face off with Thais on Rajdamnoen Avenue with guns, batons and knives. But tensions would not have just dissipated either. With or without the coup, Thais have been split down the middle over political morals. The Council for National Security, as the coup-makers called themselves, simply brought the conflict to a head.

Some people called the coup a "necessary evil". Again, whether that makes sense or is just a lame attempt at defending the indefensible depends on one's political leaning. Those who believe that Thaksin's politics will bring more good than harm to Thailand consider September 19, 2006 to be the day our clock was set back many years. They see it as a major blow to a democracy that, no matter how flawed, will heal itself in time.

So, it depends on who you are. Obviously, half of Thailand was saddened by what Thaksin did to our fledging democracy, the checks and balances of which he crippled, but were angry at the coup, which they thought destroyed what was left of an imperfect but viable system. The other half was angry at Thaksin's manipulation of democracy and they were only saddened when the generals put an already malfunctioning system out of its misery.

And it also depends on who you are when it comes to the contentious question of who or what brought about the September 19 coup. Was it a dictatorial impulse that couldn't stand the runaway popularity of a democratic politician, or was it corruption that opened the door for the intervention, whether well intended or opportunistic?

Today, we remember something that critics insist belongs to the ancient past, but which reluctant sympathisers believe laid a big marker for the path to the future. Maybe, blinded by partisan interests, both current warring camps are not in the proper state of mind to properly judge what happened two years ago today. Maybe it's up to the next generation to determine which side was right when the political system that will result from the domino effect of that fateful day is firmly in place, for better or worse.