Two days after the 19 September 2006 coup, British political scientist Duncan McCargo commented on the uncivilized way the Thais used to resolve a political problem. He remarked in the Guardian: “At this moment Thailand's self-satisfied elite should be filled with a deep sense of shame: why did they prove unable to oust Thaksin without resorting to another anachronistic military intervention?” 1 In fact, a day after the coup, McCargo said on BBC World Service that, after all these years, the Thais had not learned anything about democracy and the rule of law. In his view, clearly, this was a setback for democracy.

On the face of it, there was nothing new about the recent coup. The armed forces, led by the army, seized power from a popularly elected government that was corrupt and had abused its power, and promised to return the country to democracy. This kind of “vicious cycle” was prevalent in Thailand during the 1970s and 1980s, when the oscillation between brief parliamentary politics and military takeovers was more frequent. However, if one takes into account Thai cultural and historical factors, which inevitably shape the country's political system, there are a number of issues that distinguish this latest democratic reversal from the others. What is most interesting is the emergence of the idea of a “Thai-style democracy” (TSD) as a legitimate alternative to Western-style democracy. This is something that perhaps the Thai and Western analysts of Thai politics have not paid enough attention to over the past 74 years.

The notion of a TSD is emerging along with a heated debate about the merits of the coup among Thai intellectuals. This debate is multifaceted. First, the role of the monarchy in the development of Thai democracy has been highlighted more than ever before. Second, the coup is seen as a riposte by the old guard traditionalists — or some might say royalist- traditionalists — against a formidable Thaksin-led political alliance comprising various power groups and the capitalist class — who had during the past five years marginalized the former.