A couple of my friends said they're surprised that while I've always been critical of Thaksin and Yingluck I am now "defending" them. I am not defending them. I'm defending democracy.
There are times when overthrowing a democratically elected government can be justified. For example, in l986 Ferdinand Marcos so blatantly stole the presidential election in the Philippines that the people were right to rise up and overthrow him.
I also believe if a leader who is democratically elected turns out to be another Adolph Hitler, our concern for humanity must be given priority over all other considerations and anything necessary must be done to remove that leader from power.
But if people believe they have a right to overthrow a leader because they don’t like her Amnesty bill – which was rejected by the Senate anyway – then why bother to have a democracy in the first place? Why not just say that whatever mob happens to be taking over the streets at the moment, they get to decide who can be prime minister?