It has been a long and winding road for Thai democracy. The ongoing anti-government demonstration, spearheaded by member of parliament-turned-mob leader Suthep Thaugsuban, has exposed a serious problem facing the nation: the crisis of electoral politics. Starting off with rallying against the controversial amnesty bill, the demonstrators have now switched to the issue of corruption and tyranny of majority. They ride on the discourse of the ''Thaksin regime'' as a kind of immoral and devilish pattern of politics and advocate the overthrow of the elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra.
Fears of political violence have come true. So far, the confrontation has led to five people being killed and scores of casualties. Some have predicted that the military's political intervention might be possible. A number of foreign governments have issued travel warnings for their citizens planning to visit Thailand. Foreign media have also followed the Thai situation closely. CNN and BBC continue to report on the Thai crisis using information from their own correspondents in Thailand, taking comments from pro- and anti-government camps, as well as academics.
Overall, they have seemed to focus on the development of mob movement and the likelihood of military intervention, and more importantly, what they believe to be the source of the present crisis _ the influence of Thaksin Shinawatra. Some have shown their sympathy toward the Yingluck government and praised its handling of the demonstrations thus far, while others have questioned the legitimacy of the government.
Some of these foreign journalists appear to have misinterpreted the Thai situation. Their reports mostly follow the agenda of the anti-government forces as if it was legitimate and needed no elaboration, concentrating on the supposedly corrupt ''Thaksin regime''. This explains why some reporters are interested in the idea of a people's parliament even when the concept is in essence quite undemocratic.
The misperception lies in the fact that the ghost of Thaksin has come to eclipse the reality within the opposition camp _ the Democrat Party of which Mr Suthep was a member has been unable to compete in the game of electoral politics.
The party has never won a majority since 1992, whereas Thaksin and his proxies have won every election since 2001. The accusations of vote-buying are thin, as this would have triggered international watchdogs to declare the election results illegitimate. But more importantly, saying that rural residents are easily bought only insults their intelligence. They have become politically conscious and are no longer passive in the game of politics.
A second misperception is found in the argument that the Thaksin regime has been forever tainted by corruption and thus deserves to be eliminated. In taking this line, foreign journalists fall into a trap, painting a picture of a conflict between the rural residents who have sought to make their voices heard and the Bangkok residents who can no longer stand the seemingly corrupt Shinawatra-led governments.
But how does one define morality and who has the right to claim moral authority? By what measurement can the Bangkok elite automatically claim to possess moral authority? Rural residents might claim that their revered leader, Thaksin, had moral authority since he achieved political power through democratic means. Meanwhile, many in the middle and upper classes in Bangkok made no pretence of hiding their intention to support a military coup and other kinds of intervention in the elected government. Can these be called moral acts?
A few commentators have also relied on questionable analyses as they investigate Thai politics. A binary picture has emerged of the fight between moral forces in Bangkok and an evil regime which dominates the poor region of the country. Is this merely an attempt to make quick sense out of a complicated situation?
The last misinterpretation goes back to the point regarding electoral politics. Members of the Democrat Party know full well that while they may claim to fight for democracy, they have indeed lost faith and respect in electoral politics. Instead of remodelling their policies to be bolder and better than Thaksin's in order to win hearts and minds of ordinary Thais, they have opted to try to remove the elected government and risk damaging democratic principles.
It is tricky to penetrate the many layers of Thai politics and come up with sound arguments. This might be because of the complicated relationships among the many political actors.
While some foreign journalists are simply naive in their analysis due to a lack of information, some become a part of the political play by choosing to write from the vantage point of their own personal likes and dislikes.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun is Associate Professor at Kyoto University's Centre for Southeast Asian Studies.