All parties must come to an end. So must all political protests. The country's biggest anxiety right now is how the anti-government rally will end.
On one side are the protest leaders looking for blood. On the other side is the government _ unrepentant for its abuse of majority power _ set to fight to the end.
The scenario ahead looks gloomy indeed.
What transpired on Monday _ the protesters' seizures of key government offices, the protest leader's calls for the storming of city halls nationwide, the appeal for military intervention, the government's imposition of the Internal Security Act across all of Bangkok _ is reminiscent of what led to the bloody crackdown on red-shirt demonstrators three years ago.
All it takes is one fatal mistake, one fateful death, and all hell will break loose again.
This time, however, the tables are turned. Three years ago, Suthep Thaugsuban was the one who had to deal with the pro-Thaksin Shinawatra, red-shirt leaders' tactics to escalate confrontation. Now he is the one doing it, while Thaksin's little sister is facing the risk of being similarly accused of having blood on her hands.
Have we learned our lessons? Is history going to repeat itself?
Politicians on both sides of the fierce power game may not bother with the questions. But what about us ordinary people who _ accept it _ are merely seen and used as political pawns?
Many people joined the protest against the blanket amnesty bill because they wanted to say "enough is enough" to the government's heavy-handedness _ even cheating and lies _ in pushing so many unpalatable policies with hidden agendas down the public's throat.
On Sunday, we saw the biggest ever street protest in our country's history because people wanted to send a strong message to the government: Respect the silent majority. Change your ways.
Showing what kind of change he is after, Mr Suthep left the non-violent talks, refused a House dissolution and a snap election as the way out, and declared his desire to shut down the government and replace the Yingluck government with a People's Council.
What should the anti-government protesters do if they do not share his goals?
The reactions on social media have been mixed. Many have expressed disillusionment and withdrawn their support.
Others, however, remain very much supportive of Mr Suthep's brinkmanship. Apparently, they still believe eradicating Thaksin's political networks is the only way to save the country from corruption and threats to the monarchy. They also believe it is the only possible way to initiate national reform.
But are they kidding themselves? Honestly, do they believe inequality, corruption, and exploitation of natural resources will end once Mr Suthep is in power?
If Mr Suthep is sincere in promoting reform and protecting small people's livelihoods, why are Surat Thani residents complaining that much of the environmental destruction in that province can be linked to his political dynasty?
Civil and grassroots movements have persistently proposed reform proposals to every government that has taken power in recent years.
At the top of their lists are administrative decentralisation, comprehensive reform of land ownership regulations, taxation, natural resource management, and education. Apart from a lack of political will, fierce resistance from the centralised bureaucracy is the main obstacle to achieving national reform.
The Democrat Party is notorious for being a fierce protector of the bureaucracy. So why dream that it will bear the torch of reform?
"Accept it, what's going on has nothing to do with reform," said veteran land rights activist Prayong Doklamyai. "It's a battle for political power, plain and simple."
With decades of activism behind him, Mr Prayong insists change must come through a democratic system. "The challenge is how we can redefine democracy to respect voices on the ground and allow locals to take charge of their own affairs," he said.
Both the 1997 and 2007 charters endorse community rights to manage their local natural resources. Yet the government has betrayed these rights with its 350-billion-baht water management scheme.
"Structural reform is an uphill task," said Mr Prayong. "We need to keep working at it because it takes time. So does democracy. We need to be patient."
Sanitsuda Ekachai is Editorial Pages Editor, Bangkok Post.