In my humble opinion, recent movements of "the great mass of people" led by the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) since the middle of his month when Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra dissolved parliament, have crossed the realm of legitimate protest against a "tyranny of the majority" into the dangerous realm of a "tyranny of the minority".
They are callously ignoring the truism that a true democracy must be democratic in both ends and means.
Granted, the PDRC has many laudable ideas about how to reform Thailand; ideas that are worth continued support from Thais of all stripes. Allowing the direct election of provincial governors, closing loopholes in the impeachment procedures of representatives, and police reform _ all of these will doubtless alleviate the kinds of systemic corruption that led to illiberal democracy, for which the notorious draft blanket amnesty bill is exhibit number one.
However, the PDRC adamantly insists the only way to push the reform agenda forward is to obstruct the upcoming general election, find a "neutral" prime minister and set up a "people's council" (partly hand-picked by the PDRC) to reform Thailand, which will take one to one-and-a-half years, before "returning power" to the politicians.
As hard as I try, I cannot see how one can call this method democratic.
How can a caretaker prime minister and a people's council conceivably claim to represent the Thai people? How can they be accountable to us?
Many PDRC supporters do not deny this plan amounts to a temporary suspension of democracy. That's alright, they say; Thailand has a unique culture and a unique set of circumstances; we do not need to "follow the white man's ass" as a popular idiom goes.
Such a perspective reflects a dangerous misunderstanding, especially in today's world where over two-thirds of the world's population across every continent, except the Middle East, live in democratic regimes.
These include India and Japan, Asian countries that are fiercely proud of their culture and are distinctly different from the Anglo-Saxon world, as well as the whole South American continent.
Even in China, one of the last bastions of communism, 52% of Chinese surveyed told Pew Research in 2012 they like the idea of democracy.
Many analysts point out that China's central government listens to people's grievances much more than in the past, and gives people more opportunities to voice their discontent than Russia.
For example, labour strikes in Russia are routinely declared illegal by the courts, unlike in China.
Amartya Sen, my beloved professor and economics Nobel laureate from India, has long advocated that democracy is successful in the modern world not because people are enslaved by "Western" ideas, but because democracy protects and promotes certain "universal values" that all humans share no matter their race, religion, beliefs or ethnicity.
In his 1999 paper, "Democracy as Universal Value", Prof Sen insists " [we] must not identify democracy with majority rule. Democracy has complex demands, which certainly include voting and respect for election results, but it also requires the protection of liberties and freedoms, respect for legal entitlements, and the guaranteeing of free discussion and uncensored distribution of news and fair comment.
"Even elections can be deeply defective if they occur without the different sides getting an adequate opportunity to present their respective cases, or without the electorate enjoying the freedom to obtain news and to consider the views of the competing protagonists. Democracy is a demanding system, and not just a mechanical condition (like majority rule) taken in isolation."
This perspective agrees with the PDRC's views, which at their core are the protest against "tyranny of the majority" which uses the "mechanical condition" of having won an electoral mandate as a cover-up. But here Prof Sen diverges: he further points out that " [viewed] in this light, the merits of democracy and its claim as a universal value can be related to certain distinct virtues that go with its unfettered practice. Indeed, we can distinguish three different ways in which democracy enriches the lives of the citizens living under it.
"First, political freedom is a part of human freedom in general, and exercising civil and political rights is a crucial part of good lives of individuals as social beings. To be prevented from participation in the political life of the community is a major deprivation.
"Second, democracy has an important instrumental value in enhancing the hearing that people get in expressing and supporting their claims to political attention (including claims of economic needs).
"Third, the practice of democracy gives citizens an opportunity to learn from one another, and helps society to form its values and priorities. Even the idea of 'needs' including the understanding of 'economic needs,' requires public discussion and exchange of information, views, and analyses. In this sense, democracy has constructive importance, in addition to its intrinsic value for the lives of the citizens and its instrumental importance in political decisions."
In short, democracy is a universal value because everyone wants it to be recognised that he or she has equal worth and the same basic rights as everyone else. Any process or plan that does not adhere to this value therefore cannot be called democratic.
It would indeed be a missed opportunity if "the great mass of people", which is rightly proud of people power that successfully ousted the autocratic government, would be unconfident that this same people power would be able to watch out for irregularities during the upcoming election, scrutinise any abuses of power and clamour for real reform post-election _ so unconfident, in fact, to agree to a temporary suspension of the necessary democratic procedures.
I fear that perhaps the real "Thainess" might be the use of the term "Thainess" as an easy excuse to deny ourselves of the universal value. We cannot possibly become more democratic in the long run by resorting to undemocratic means in the short run.
Sarinee Achavanuntakul is a writer, advocate of freedom of expression and founder of ThaiPublica, an investigative journalism website ( www.thaipublica.org). She is also co-founder of Sal Forest, Thailand's first sustainable business research and advocacy firm.