Thailand is at a political crossroads. The Yingluck Shinawatra government's easy victory after a two-day censure debate yesterday hammers home its critics' points over the danger of majority rule when good governance is lacking. Yet the political reform proposals from the anti-government movement do not sit well with a democratic system in an open society either.
On Wednesday night, politician-turned-protest-leader Suthep Thaugsuban finally revealed his movement's reform agenda. It can be summarised as clean elections, corruption-free politics, government accountability, police reform, administrative decentralisation, education reform, transparent bureaucracy, and people-centred development.
Apart from eradication of money politics, there must be all-out efforts to cleanse the system of corruption with an end to the statute of limitations for corruption cases.
The people, meanwhile, should elect their own provincial governors and have direct power to impeach politicians. The centralised police force must come to an end, and officers must report to governors and be accountable to local communities instead.
The bureaucracy must be cleansed of nepotism. Education, public health and transport must also be placed on the national agenda without being turned into populist policies to win votes.
Under question is not what Mr Suthep's reform issues are about. Be they decentralisation, community-based policing, education reform, or the end of corruption and money politics, these proposals echo the public's long yearnings for change that have consistently been turned down by successive governments and all political parties, including the Democrat Party which Mr Suthep once belonged as a top executive.
Under question, however, is how these reform policies will be implemented.
According to Mr Suthep, a so-called "People's Council" comprising "people from all walks of life" would be set to elect a "dream team" cabinet to run the country.
This is a dangerous idea for many reasons. To start with, it reinforces the top-down, closed system which betrays the transparency and democratic values the anti-government movement is calling for.
In addition, the people's council idea is reminiscent of similar bodies that were set up after the 1973 student uprising and the 2006 coup. They only came into existence after political violence. What is Mr Suthep thinking?
It is also untrue that a bottom-up democracy cannot co-exist with parliamentary politics. At present, a number of local communities have set up their own town-hall style councils to work out local needs and push for people-centred policies. Both the 1997 and 2007 charters are also in favour of community rights.
Any glitches from resistant bureaucracy and unfair laws should be ironed out in a democratic system. Turning back the clock and saying no to electoral democracy _ albeit imperfect _ will not only rob the country of legitimacy in the international arena, it will also trigger another round of political violence from clashes with the red-shirt movement.
This does not mean the cry for reform and inclusive democracy should not be heard by the Yingluck government. It is undeniable that the country urgently needs reform. But it should be a policy platform for voters to decide.
That is not possible, however, if both rival parties refuse to consider a House dissolution and a snap election as a way out of the political crisis. They need to talk things out. The stakes are too high for both to continue with their power politics.