David Van Praagh, a journalism professor in Canada, has an op-ed in The Globe and Mail entitled “Thai democracy on its sickbed”. Given its discussion of sensitive topics, BP will not link to it, but of course there is google. The article argues in favour of enlightened generals and the Democrats (the author has written a book on one of the founders of the Democrats Seni Pramoj) and against Thaksin. Key excerpts:

The red-shirted demonstrators, joined by some well-meaning orange-robed Buddhist monks, are not really for democracy. They are for the return to power of an exiled Sino-Thai kleptomaniac, Thaksin Shinawatra, who tore the country apart politically and economically when he was in power from 2001 to 2006, and will wreak more damage it if he comes back.
…
Mr. Thaksin and his followers, although most of them may not realize it, are anti-royalist.

While robbing the government of at least $1.4-billion while he was prime minister – the sum determined in an unanimous order for repayment from Thailand’s supreme court ordering him to pay it back (he was allowed to keep another $900-million) – Mr. Thaksin insidiously sought to undermine the monarchy.
…
Repeatedly, generals have been able to seize power. The worst such coup was in 1976; soldiers brutally beat students, and Mr. Seni, again prime minister, was overthrown. But within a year, enlightened generals ousted their regressive comrades and restored the bright shining dream of democracy.

Something similar needs to happen again. Westerners rightly view military coups as bad news. But some Thai generals who put their country above personal spoils. The army overthrew Mr. Thaksin in 2006, not to retake power but to stop him from stealing the country blind while throwing out scraps to impressionable villagers, which had enabled him to win the first majority in the Thai parliament.
…
Thaksin cynically exploited the economic divide between a fast-growing middle class and established bureaucracies in the cities, on one hand and, on the other, subsistence rice-growing families in the countryside, used to being paid for their votes. He widened this gap by distributing largesse to the poor on an unprecedented scale during and after elections – but still a small fraction of what he pocketed personally [BP: Widened the economic gap?].

If this was populism, it was unfair. If it was democracy, it was immoral.
….
The inescapable if unprovable conclusion is that many well-off Thais, who worship wealth, are deep down afraid of democracy and the changes it can bring in their lives [BP: About the only sentence of the quoted excerpt that BP agrees with].

Mr. Thaksin identified this phenomenon and is still riding it as far he can. Clearly neither he nor any other demagogue is the solution. Nor is the Thai army as it sometimes had been, although it can continue to help safeguard democracy, in a way comparable to the Turkish military since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Another election is looming, not at the behest of bloody demonstrators, but under Thai law. Prachatipat must continue to be loyal to Thailand’s democratic heritage as Thailand’s only well-defined party. The Democrats need to erase any taint of corruption in their own ranks, and stimulate the creation of a responsible conservative party.

BP: Perhaps, if he removes the references to the monarchy, he can get a column at The Nation. He seems like a perfect fit.