More than 100,000 people turned out on the streets of Bangkok carrying a huge national flag that enveloped almost 50 rows of protesters while their leader proclaimed a "people's revolution". It was a response to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's decision to dissolve parliament early and ask the Thai people to decide who should run the country. It was also a demonstration that Thailand's politicians are dancing with disaster, or worse, in their rallies and claims that they alone represent democracy. The grim prospect is that, if the demonstrations continue to disrupt government and business, the reluctant army may intervene. That might be the least worst of the options, but it would be an immense setback for the country that could and should be the brightest rising star in Asia. Discontent on the streets was fomented by a former deputy prime minister and Democrat Party politician, Suthep Thaugsuban, who declared that his "people's revolution" would offer a chance for the country to "start over". He promised that the police, notorious for their corruption, would be replaced with "security volunteers". In addition, a new constitution would be written that would ban populist policies of the type Thaksin Shinawatra has employed. And a "people's council" composed of "decent men" would be chosen to replace parliament. What arrant, arrogant nonsense! Who gave Suthep the authority to present himself as the people's saviour? It is not easy to sympathise, but it is important to understand where he is coming from. The Western press has generally presented what is happening as a struggle between the largely Bangkok-based elite, unwilling to surrender its privilege to rule, and the hard-working farmers and peasants commanded by the exiled Thaksin, the man who can't stop winning elections. This is a caricature of the whole truth. Thaksin or the parties standing for him won the last four elections with good majorities. There was certainly vote-buying, bribery and corruption, as there has been routinely in Thai elections, but Thaksin has done it more efficiently. Thaksin carried a popular majority with him, but led a fractured country, with Bangkok and much of the south against and increasingly hostile to him. The argument against Thaksin is that he was no democrat. To his credit, he offered better prices to poor farmers and a better deal for poor areas, but in this he was stealing the policies of Kukrit Pramoj, a prime minister of the 1970s. Thaksin was a one-man band who treated his cabinet as a rubber stamp and largely ignored parliament. He was accused of responsibility for the widespread killings of Muslims in the south who wanted more autonomy. His "war on drugs" led to over 2,000 alleged dealers being killed, some of them innocents caught in the crossfire. He was accused of abuse of power for using his office to strike business deals to enhance his already vast personal fortune. The army coup that toppled Thaksin in 2006 when he was visiting the UN stirred up Thailand's political waters dangerously. It was the 18th military coup in the past 80 years. But it showed, as leading Democrat politician Korn Chatikavanij said, that Thailand had become too sophisticated for simple military men to command. That explains the reluctance of the army now to take sides. Thaksin's enforced absence abroad allowed his enemies to move against him, get his party banned and himself convicted on several charges of corruption, with seizure of assets and a jail sentence hanging over his head if he dared to return. Even in exile, Thaksin dominates Thai politics. After a two-year interregnum in which Suthep was deputy prime minister of a Democrat-led coalition, Thaksin loyalists roared back to power in 2011 and Thaksin installed his sister Yingluck, a political neophyte, as prime minister. It is an open secret that Thaksin calls the shots from abroad and meets ministers offshore from time to time. Yingluck steamrollered through the lower house an amnesty bill that would allow Thaksin to come back to Thailand a free man. She offered to negotiate only after the bill was stalled in the upper house because of intense opposition that spilled onto the streets. It's easy to understand the frustration and anger of the opposition, having to face a prime minister who takes her instructions from abroad and does not take parliament seriously. The best anyone will say for her is that she at least had the sense to drop the amnesty bill and not call out the army to deal with the Bangkok protesters. But nothing will be served if the Democrats and other opponents boycott the elections. It can only lead to a choice of mob rule or an army takeover, either of which would be disastrous to Thailand's existence. True democrats have to trust the people or there is no meaning in it. Kevin Rafferty was editor of Business Day in Thailand