Critics pilloried him for being unpatriotic, deceitful and greedy, on top of old charges of abusing power - not to mention leaving investment laws in shreds. They claim the majority want Mr Thaksin to quit. He begs to differ. Opinion polls, allegedly independent, suggest he will win his third consecutive victory, though with perhaps 30 seats fewer then the 370 he now commands in the 500-seat lower house. His appeal to county folk is based on his carefully crafted can-do reputation, policies targeting poverty and straight talk. They like affordable health care, debt moratoriums for farmers and million-baht village credit pools. Never mind questions over policy effectiveness, his agenda and rudeness.

Opposition parties have proved hopeless against ruling Thai Rak Thai's sophisticated, battle-hardened election machine. When Mr Thaksin baulked at constitutional reforms that would stop one party dominating the system, they pulled out of the planned election.

Neither side wants to lose face by backing down. This crisis has pulled back the silk screen masking the ugly realities of democracy in Thailand: plenty of form, not much substance.

Democracy requires people to commit themselves in spirit and action, to build independent institutions that are able to enforce rules ensuring fairness, which makes results acceptable.

Mr Thaksin stuffed independent bodies with his supporters, including convicted election cheats. He brought most newspapers, radio stations and television channels to heel. Like many Thais, he acts as if laws apply selectively, and certainly not to him.

A few thousand people were killed in his war on drugs, supposedly small-time dealers, while kingpins escaped death-squad bullets. Some say local score-settling during that campaign lit the fire for the present troubles in provinces bordering Malaysia.

But Mr Thaksin has also been rather good at playing the democracy game. Critics and protesters, unsurprisingly, have cried foul. Impatient for change and believing that Mr Thaksin is a tyrant - and unbeatable at the polls - they have resorted to the street. They are using tactics better suited to challenging the authoritarian regimes that ruled Thailand for most of the years between 1946 and 1992.

The protesters would better serve democracy by forming an honest party in tune with the masses, committed to sustained voter education. If Myanmar's opposition could win almost every seat in 1990 against a harsh authoritarian regime, Mr Thaksin is not invincible in relatively free Thailand. This largely urban, middle-class movement feels short-changed because the system is not working the way they think it should.

That partly reflects attitudes borne of patron-client relationships that remain strong undercurrents in Thai society, commanding loyalty and dispensing rewards. In villages, it translates into votes for sale.

Top-down democracy imposes a system on a people quite unprepared for the ramifications of a very different way of doing things. To expect a strong western-style liberal democracy to work perfectly overnight is simply asking too much.

However this crisis pans out, it will not be the last. Much worse may follow when the frail, godly king - whose presence binds society - dies. Ahead lie a few decades of turmoil that, one hopes, will lead to a stronger, fairer and more honest society.

David Fullbrook is a freelance writer and political analyst