Thaksin: A Don Quixote for democracy or a Shylock for power?

It's a pity, however, that he didn't ask himself a simple question before setting out to do what a man has to do.

Can he, or will he, look in the mirror and honestly ask himself whether he would still be in power if Prem Tinsulanonda and Surayud Chulanont were not on the Privy Council?

Given his mindset, it is pointless to argue whether Thaksin is justified in portraying Prem and Surayud as his demons.

He will soon find out for himself whether, by demonising Prem and Surayud, he is resolving or compounding his own predicament.

Throughout history, Thailand has proved resilient time and again. The wrath of Thaksin will come to pass, just like all other aberrations.

The Privy Council is an established institution with an exemplary record for more than a century. There is no reason to suspect a bad-mouthing by Thaksin can alter anything.

The story of the September 19, 2006 coup, as told by Thaksin, has no new information. Before the power seizure to the present, the anti- and the pro-Thaksin camps have been engaging in a disinformation campaign designed either to justify or to undermine the coup.

Rival camps have churned out many versions of the coup to suit their expediency.

By rehashing a coup version linked to Prem and Surayud, Thaksin has managed to swell the number of protesting red shirts. But it remains to be seen whether the sentiment will be sustained enough to serve his purpose.

It's curious that Thaksin now projects himself as a democracy crusader. In 2003, the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh was torched following a riot.

The story behind it was the Cambodian leader wanted to get even with his Thai counterpart for acting like a carpetbagger in financing an attempted coup in his country.

For a couple of days in a row, Thaksin has been trying to remind how Prem donned his military uniform to sway the soldiers.

He omitted to mention that Prem's action happened after speculation about a government-sponsored coup to cling to power by crushing the yellow shirts.

Prem simply reminded the soldiers of their allegiance to the nation and the monarchy - to not get involved in the ups and downs of a government.

Thaksin has issued a passionate plea for soldiers to march back to their barracks. Who lured the soldiers into politics between 2001 and 2006? It is a classic case of a snake charmer getting bitten by his snake.

To understand, but never to condone why the coup happened, Thaksin and all parties concerned should factor in the prevailing circumstances in 2005 and 2006.

Thaksin, in particular, will have plenty of time to reflect why he became the man at the centre of the turmoil regardless of his popularity.

In the months preceding the coup, the turmoil kept on intensifying to an unprecedented level. The coup was harmful to democracy, no question about it. But Thaksin appeared at the time to inflame the situation rather than pacify it.

Practically all leading figures, the so-called aristocracy, turned their backs on him. By staying silent about the coup, the aristocrats, like Prem and Surayud, spoke volumes on how they viewed him.

To the vast majority of Thai citizens trying to cope with the turmoil, the choice presented to them in 2006 was not between good and evil but to pick between bad and worse - coup or Thaksin.

Time will tell which of the two - the 2006 coup or Thaksin's runaway power - was more harmful to democracy.

Then society can put behind the political polarisation. Thaksin will earn his place in history, either as a crusader or an exploiter of democracy.