Here we go again. At the time you are reading this, out in the streets there are a) clashes and chaos between multitudes of protesters and security personnel, or b) three people in masks and two in multi-colour shirts camping out peacefully in front of Government House.
In truth, it's probably somewhere in between.
The issue sparking the protests (of whatever size) is the reading of the amnesty bill proposed by Pheu Thai MP Worachai Hema. It is set to be deliberated by the House of Representatives on Wednesday and Thursday. The government expects a mass protest by the combined forces of the V For Thailand group, Pitak Siam and the People's Army.
A special cabinet meeting last Wednesday decided to impose the Internal Security Act (ISA) in Dusit, Phra Nakhon and Pomprap Sattruphai districts of Bangkok until Aug 10.
Some may say invoking the ISA is unnecessary and an act of paranoia. Nonetheless, given the havoc wrought by both the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) in past years, invoking the ISA may just be prudent.
And yes, it also serves as a thinly veiled warning to the protesters to keep things in line. As well, the UDD promising to stay out of it is a wise strategy to avoid clashes.
With the Democrats now championing street protests and Pheu Thai invoking the ISA, it is indeed a role reversal from 2009 and 2010. It must be said that the Democrats' plans to organise street protests are within the law, as was the case for Pheu Thai three years ago.
To march against what they deem as corruption and unconstitutional rule passed on from Thaksin Shinawatra, who is considered a fugitive criminal, is well and fine. Just as, three years ago, it was well and fine to march against a government considered to be coup-installed and illegitimate.
One need not agree with the stance of either side, but both in principle are within legal boundaries. However things won't be legal, well or fine if events degenerate into chaos and anarchy, as they did three years ago.
The actions of the Democrats and anti-Thaksin groups on this and the coming days ought to be a political communication effort to persuade and inspire the people of Thailand to vote Democrat rather than Pheu Thai in the next general election.
Or, these groups may use the strength and pressure of their numbers to persuade the government to step down and call for a snap election. Either way, they should not incite violence to bring down the government.
With the King and Queen in Hua Hin, on top of all the political developments, the rumour mills are in a frenzy over possible unrest that might be planned and designed. If the situation gets out of hand, which hopefully it won't, here's what could possibly happen.
Protesters start to break laws, as they did in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Security forces move in to make arrests and restore order, as they did in 2008, 2009 and 2010. People get hurt and lives may be lost, as happened in 2008, 2009 and 2010.
When the dust settles and the smoke clears, one side will scream "terrorists" and the other side "murderers", in a role reversal. The chaos and anarchy may of course end with tanks in the streets to "restore order", resulting in an appointed government.
It won't be democratic, but it is the final safeguard of society against anarchy when the cup of stupidity runneth over.
Since the 2006 military coup, only the national government appointed by the interim council can be considered democratically illegitimate. The governments of the People's Power Party, the Democrats and Pheu Thai all came into power legitimately, according to the rules of parliamentary democracy.
Opponents may scream that those three parties came into power through shady and dubious means, especially in the case of the Democrats. But shady and dubious do not equal illegitimacy, as Samak Sundaravej, Abhisit Vejjajiva and Yingluck Shinawatra were all chosen by the elected representatives in government at the time.
This is how it's done in parliamentary democracy, although in the United States the popular vote may not necessarily determine the winner, thanks to the electoral college concept.
Whenever the topic of Thai politics comes up, we go round and round in circles. Always back to the 2006 coup, back to the riots of the past years, and the same arguments over and over again as to who is legitimate and democratic and who isn't.
In 2013, we still argue over 2006, because we have yet to resolve the past. We have not resolved the past because we don't stand by democracy and the rule of law. We play factional politics, which dictates that democracy is only legitimate and the rule of law should only be upheld if and when it suits us.
Nay, democracy and rule of law ought to be the benchmark, not just convenient tools.
We go round in circles because we are dominated by the emotion invested on either side. As emotion can be jerked around like a puppet on a strings, the people are always vulnerable to becoming tools for the powerful elites to exploit in their political struggles.
As long as the people choose first either the Democrats or Pheu Thai, and everything else second, then we will still be stuck on this ship of fools.
If we refused to be made tools and fools, and instead chose, first and foremost, democratic values and the rule of law, then we would not allow ourselves to be exploited. Then, and only then, could we drag those powerful elites, kicking and screaming, to move the nation forward.
Protest as you will. Demand as you wish. But do what you must under the rule of law. You may even test the rule of law. Tease it. Toy with it. Put a toe over it. But if things get out of hand, always remember to stand and defend democracy and the rule of law, not a particular political faction.
Colour fades. People pass away. Money gets devalued. Be loyal to principles; they never die.
Contact Voranai Vanijaka via email at voranaiv@bangkokpost.co.th.