From the self-proclaimed uprising of "the great mass of the people" marching like worker ants all over Bangkok to the ever dwindling gathering, confined to a stage in Lumpini Park the size of a small high-school play, the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) is now a mere shadow of what it once was.
Like the yellow-shirt movement of years past, the PDRC’s vital organs are slowly shutting down, but its last act will be to work out how to die an honourable death. The hardcore PDRC leaders, defiant as ever, will refuse to concede defeat. That is a certainty. Only those afflicted with a serious case of denial would be able to convince themselves that the PDRC has achieved a great victory. But for what reasons has the PDRC failed?
Firstly, the PDRC has utterly failed to achieve its main objective, namely ridding the country of the ill-defined concept of the "Thaksin regime". If caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, her MPs and the Pheu Thai Party are to be disbanded or bulldozed like previous Thaksin-backed administrations of old, this cloak-and-dagger task will have to be completed by the courts, the National Anti-Corruption Commission or the real power behind the scenes, the army.
It is now up to these three supposedly independent and impartial institutions that stand alone on the political battlefield. What these three institutions choose to do in the coming months will in my view determine Thailand’s fate for many years to come. The PDRC no longer has skin in the game and has become nothing more than noisy neighbours.
Secondly, protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban's delusions of grandeur caused the PDRC to overplay its hand like a novice poker player in a casino, drunk from the bright lights and free booze, thinking it might be able to bring the house down by doubling up on its bets.
Many people, including myself, could see the hypocrisy and indeed illegality in Pheu Thai’s attempt at passing the ill-fated blanket amnesty bill.
However, from this springboard Mr Suthep disingenuously piggy-backed on this movement, hijacking the amnesty bill protests and turning into an uprising aimed solely at dismantling the political apparatus of the Democrat Party’s arch rival, Thaksin Shinawatra.
Truth be told, the PDRC at one point had already achieved victory by bringing the government to its knees by demonstrating how much "relatively" peaceful protests could achieve. At that point Mr Suthep should have declared victory and forced the government into a political reform programme which would have benefited us all. But alas, in the end Mr Suthep made the age-old mistake that most powerful politicians such as Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Thaksin did: He overstayed his welcome.
Thirdly, the PDRC’s diabolically flawed belief that the ends justifies the means was a large part of its undoing. Essentially it is a misguided concept that has shown the world how deeply hypocritical and unlawful our system has become.
Let’s be honest. These protests ended up being far from peaceful. It was hardly Martin Luther King’s civil rights march on Washington DC. King’s bodyguards were not armed with grenades and machine guns. King’s speech on that sunny August day in 1963 was in total contrast to most of what Mr Suthep venomously bellowed out on stage for three months. Martin Luther King talked about reconciliation, not revenge. Justice for all and not for the few. Rule of law instead of law of rule. But most importantly he inspired hope rather than just hoping for the best.
King would never have agreed with how the PDRC protest pushed the boundaries of legality and its disintegration into violence. Indeed, on that very day King warned fellow protesters not to "allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force".
So what happens now? What else is in store for Thailand? As I have written before, all our political roads will lead to the courts. The army, knowing that the red shirts will no longer tolerate a military coup, has given the courts what rugby players call a "hospital pass". It will be these men in dark robes that will decide whether we march together towards general elections or whether we suspend democracy in favour of an "impartial" interim administration.
Our justice system has had its credibility seriously questioned with some very bizarre rulings. It is imperative for our courts to make landmark rulings based on the rule of law, rather than on which direction the political winds are blowing. What is deemed illegal for the yellow shirts must also be illegal for the red shirts. What is illegitimate for the Pheu Thai Party must also be illegitimate for the Democrat Party. And what is deemed unconstitutional for Thaksin and Ms Yingluck must also be unconstitutional for Mr Suthep and Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva.
The courts are the final arbiter in a civil society’s disputes, but to do their job they must act with total impartiality.
Songkran Grachangnetara is an entrepreneur. He graduated from The London School of Economics and Columbia University. He can be reached at Twitter: @SongkranTalk