The political conflict which has seen a series of violent attacks and acts of sabotage has rekindled public fears over a coup.
The Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order director Pol Gen Adul Saengsingkaew made a request for deployment of soldiers _ a total of 6,000 _ to protect government offices as well as TV channels 5, 9, 11 and TPBS.
That move fuelled rumours of a coup, especially with the show of tanks in the heart of Bangkok over the weekend.
At a glance, the current situation is similar to the eve of Sept 19, 2006, when then army commander Sonthi Boonyaratglin staged a coup against then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. But the conditions and the context were different then. Today, any coup would backfire on the military.
Those who regard a coup as a way out of the political crisis should realise that such a move would only enable the lame-duck government of Yingluck Shinawatra to reclaim legitimacy with a show of sympathy and support from the international community.
Pressure groups including farmers, small and medium-size enterprises and some larger businesses would be upset with the military and the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) for lost opportunities from populist projects including the rice scheme, the high-speed railway project, the flood-prevention programmes, and so on.
More importantly, a coup would also void any legal punishments for hundreds of Pheu Thai MPs over National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) rulings regarding the charter amendment, Senate composition and other charges.
It cannot be denied that yesterday's "Bangkok shutdown" led by the PDRC has to some extent succeeded in crippling the Yingluck government. The Pheu Thai Party and more specifically Shinawatra clan members have suffered a legitimacy deficit since they tried to pass the amnesty bill, initially aimed at releasing rank-and-file members of the red shirts jailed since the 2006 coup.
On the one hand, Pheu Thai cannot escape blame for causing the nation so much trouble. It betrayed the public, particularly its own supporters, with the contentious amnesty bill. The party doesn't seem to treasure the only asset it has _ the people.
Take for example, the choice of cabinet ministers. The selections have been based on connections to the Shinawatra clan rather than capability.
On the other hand, some party intellectuals still hope Pheu Thai will learn a big lesson from this crisis and take a bold step forward with a much-needed paradigm shift.
Party members should realise by now that it's the corruption, cronyism and power abuse that have deprived them of the public's trust, especially among the middle class and Bangkokians.
It could be said that the Pheu Thai Party has missed a number of chances to emerge as a guardian of democracy.
Maybe de facto leader Thaksin Shinawatra was too far away or too poorly informed, if not misinformed, about the real situation at home.
Maybe he was too self-confident in his prowess and maybe he could not really do anything as many things had been left in the hands of his sisters _ the shadow party leader Yaowapa Wongsawat and de jure leader Yingluck.
And not to mention his ex-wife Khunying Potjaman na Pombejra who is still around in the political arena.
Pheu Thai has yet to understand civil society leaders who have previously played greater roles in national socio-economic development policy and issues including free trade area agreements and the performance-based rural hospital management policy, and who have made calls for transparency in state affairs.
In fact, if Pheu Thai had decided to skip the election and allowed smaller _ as well as newly formed _ parties to run while it focused on reform, it would have received public admiration.
After all, Pheu Thai will make a political comeback in any election, so it should make efforts to strengthen democracy and communicate better with the middle classes.
Without democracy within the party, the Pheu Thai leaders can only "parrot" democratic principles.
I admire the caretaker premier because she defiantly refuses to leave office and makes positive gestures about reform _ even though nothing has emerged yet in transparent and participatory ways regarding this issue.
Now that more people including staff of public organisations such as Ramathibodi Hospital and Chulalongkorn University, as well as key academics who have formed the "Two Yes-Two No" network have voiced support for an election, Ms Yingluck should stand firm and ignore the latest petition from the Election Commission to delay the poll.
She must hold on to democratic principles and prepare a reform course without worrying about whether Pheu Thai survives politically.
She must go beyond being a representative of her family and become the leader of this country.
Achara Ashayagachat is Senior News Reporter, Bangkok Post.