It seems our brightest political scientists are hung up on "elected" as the holy grail of democracy. They cannot see that we are a failed democracy, dysfunctional, unable to produce a government that can gain the respect of the vast majority.
Elections have produced dead rubber in which the hallowed “majority” spurned all choices. Perhaps it’s time to admit that reform is essential before we strike an X against any further choice. But to get there we need a leader who is non-partisan and seen as neutral by all; someone sincere enough to oversee a reform process that is not unduly influenced by either protagonist.
Is it really counter to democracy for our head of state, a man most of us trust, to royally appoint an acceptable leader for a limited time while we take this treasured but twee notion of “democracy” offline for an essential upgrade? It’s been done dozens of times to liberate nations locked in conflict.
In Suthep we have a deadweight of a barrier unwilling to “talk” because he along with his supporters, totally mistrusts the other side. In Pheu Thai we have a party unable or unwilling to sidestep him by replacing Yingluck with someone who doesn’t take orders from an unelected person in Dubai. Perhaps both main parties need to be side-lined for now, since they are the problem.