The continuing political crisis in Thailand threatens to damage its huge tourism industry and to undermine the confidence of both foreign and domestic investors. It has also deflected attention from important domestic concerns.
Within the past fortnight, rival groups have confronted one another on the streets with at least one death and many injuries.
The source of the conflict is puzzling to outsiders. Two issues motivate the protesters, led by the so-called People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). The first is deep antipathy towards the present Prime Minister, Samak Sundaravej, and even more so towards his patron-in-exile, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, deposed in a military coup two years ago. The second and more basic issue is ambivalence towards electoral democracy itself.
Samak, 73, is a bellicose right-winger with a long and controversial political past. He is perceived as a crude proxy for Thaksin. A brilliant entrepreneur, Thaksin demonstrated an amazing capacity first to enrich himself massively by manipulating government telecommunications regulators and then to use this wealth to advance himself politically. Allegedly, he then misused this political power to enrich himself and his family even further.
Thaksin is admired by the rural masses who were the basis of his political support. These groups recognise the economic benefits that Thaksin brought to them while in power and could not care less about his alleged corruption or his limitless greed. But both Thaksin and Samak, along with all those closely allied to them, are despised by the Bangkok elite.
Contrary to its name, the PAD is essentially a conservative middle-class movement that craves a return, at least partially, to Thailand's more authoritarian past. They perceive the electoral successes of Thaksin, Samak and their allies as threatening the dominant position of Thailand's traditional elite the army, the civil service and especially the monarchy. They have seen what electoral democracy delivers and they do not like it.
There is little doubt that if new elections were held soon, Thaksin's allies ''proxies'' or not would win again. Such is the magnitude of their rural support.
The PAD has demanded that Samak step down and two basic changes be made. First, the proportion of the Parliament that is elected should be limited to 30 per cent, the rest appointed by the elite. Second, it wants the possibility of a Prime Minister who is not an elected Member of Parliament. Each of these demands conflicts with the present constitution.
The PAD points out that the two most respected prime ministers of recent decades Prem Tinsulanonda and Anand Panyarachun were not elected but appointed by the king.
The position of the PAD is thus a rejection of one-person, one-vote electoral democracy. Beneath this is a disdain for the competence of the poorly educated rural people who elected Thaksin and Samak.
Samak has refused to submit to ''mob rule''. He has pointed out, with some justification, that unlike the self-appointed PAD leaders he was duly elected to public office. But events of the past two weeks have undermined his position.
First, the Electoral Commission has recommended to the Constitutional Court that Samak's People's Power Party (PPP) be dissolved for electoral fraud, as was its predecessor, Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party. If the Constitutional Court agrees, members of the PPP could simply reunite under a different name, but there would be a lingering stigma.
Second, when Samak declared a state of emergency this week, giving the army legal control of Bangkok, the head of the army, General Anupong Paochinda, publicly refused to act against the demonstrators. He even refrained from expressing the army's support for the Government.
Third, the highly respected foreign minister, Tej Bunnag, suddenly resigned. He was appointed only two months ago after farcical confrontation with Cambodia over the land surrounding an ancient temple on their border. His resignation isolated Samak.
Finally, this week the Constitutional Court voted to remove Samak from office because he had accepted payment for appearing on a TV cooking program. His party could presumably re-elect him but, again, a stigma would remain.
Samak may be finished, but unfortunately the two most obvious alternative leaders within the PPP are even closer to Thaksin than Samak was. Appointment of either one as prime minister would merely prolong the crisis.
Cool heads within Thailand are urging restraint on all sides. They want a peaceful resolution, through the Parliament, in a manner consistent with the present constitution.
Thailand is groping, sometimes stumbling, towards a form of democracy that suits its own circumstances. Finding that middle ground will require compromise on all sides.
Professor Warr is convener of the Arndt-Corden division of economics and director of the National Thai Studies Centre at the Australian National University.