The Thai coup is further evidence of a problem Southeast Asia is having: namely, acknowledging that successful liberal democracy requires participants to accept the rules of the political game. This means institutions must be stronger than individuals - something difficult to create other than over a long period of time.
Thailand is fortunate in one sense. Its monarchy has an ancient history and is occupied by a much-respected king. But it is not at all clear how the king sees the monarchy relating to other political institutions. Nor has the Thai monarchy always enjoyed its current level of influence. For 30 years or more after the 1932 overthrow of the absolute monarchy, it was of marginal relevance. The king's power now is more personal than institutional, and he is unlikely to pass that on to his son, the crown prince, or indeed to any other royals.
The king is certainly no convinced democrat. This makes the third time in 30 years that he has given the nod to a coup against an elected leader. The leaders of every coup claimed their goal was to restore stability and save the nation from corrupt politicians and power-hungry generals. This time, the target was an authoritarian populist who disdained the rules of the game and loaded the dice. The democrats who opposed him boycotted the last election, and now they seem to accept the coup - showing their own disdain for the democracy that they fought for during a failed coup in 1992.
This was not a Latin-style coup, with a strongman and a junta. This was more a revolt of establishment forces against prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's populism - in which the palace, the top bureaucrats, some business groups and the Bangkok middle class all played a role. In that sense, it was similar to the Philippines' ouster of president Joseph Estrada in 2001. The Philippines is still struggling with the consequences of that quasi-constitutional coup.
The problem for Thailand may be similar: that removing Mr Thaksin by force has set a precedent and created animosities that will ensue when the king is no longer around.
For now, however, Thais have reacted against the Singapore model of democracy: namely, that election by the majority gives a leader carte blanche to mould society and make an exclusive claim on wisdom and power. Former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia got halfway to that position, but some checks remained in the form of well-organised opposition parties and the survival of a degree of democracy within the ruling party.